Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KENT WATER BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I have to draw the attention of the House to the large number of Amendments made in another place to the Kent Water Bill. This number is explained by the fact that the opposition to the Bill in this House was directed to the Preamble of the Bill, and that points on Clauses were left over for consideration in the second House. I am advised, however, that the Amendments made in another place are substantially concerned with drafting and consequential matters and that no point of principle appears to arise.
In view of the number of Amendments, I have given a direction to the promoters under Standing Order 186, that the Amendments should be printed and made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. If any hon. Member wishes to raise any particular point on any of these Amendments, I shall endeavour to satisfy him.

Mr. Hayman: I do not object to the Lords Amendments, but I feel that they should not pass without some comment. The Bill was before a Select Committee of this House from 18th May, 1955, until 7th July, 1955, and the Committee sat on twenty-three occasions. The Third Reading in another place took place last Thursday. The debate lasted for an hour and nine minutes, including a Division.
These Lords Amendments cover seventeen pages. There are 278 of them

and nine new Clauses. I think I am correct in saying that the first time the notice appeared on the Notice Paper was yesterday. The original Bill contains eighty-seven pages, with twenty-eight pages of additions. It seems to me that two days affords very little time for hon. Members of this House to check the Amendments, and I hope that in future some amendment of Standing Orders may be made to allow us a little more time, if that be required.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly and agreed to.

GERMAN POTASH SYNDICATE LOAN BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed.

DEWSBURY MOOR CREMATORIUM BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax (Greeting Cards)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce to 25 per cent. the Purchase Tax on greeting cards printed in more than three colours.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I regret that I cannot single out these greeting cards for a special tax reduction.

Mr. Hall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any logical reason why those who have a greater love of colour than some of their fellows should have a greater burden of taxation put upon them when they buy cards?

Mr. Butler: It would be possible to say that it depended upon the colour. My real anxiety is about differentiating between these objects and others.

Workers' Bonus Shares (Tax)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider amending the Finance Act, so that bonus shares given to workpeople, up to a maximum market value of £250 each and subject


to them being retained for a minimum number of years, should be free of Income Tax to the workers.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have noted the proposal, but my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has already drawn my hon. Friend's attention to the difficulties and inequities inherent in proposals of this kind.

Mr. Osborne: While recognising that great inequalities would result from adopting such a scheme, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not better to encourage co-partnership schemes and forgo a little revenue for the Inland Revenue?

Mr. Butler: It is not so much the revenue as equity about which I am worried.

Petrol Duty (Agricultural Machinery)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to consider making a tax rebate on petrol used in farming and horticultural machinery.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I will consider this proposal in due course as a Budget matter, along with similar proposals that have been made on behalf of other users of dutiable oils.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend remember—I am sure he will—that the people who use petrol on farms and in connection with agriculture and horticulture are generally small men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—small men who feel that there is something of a discrimination against them by comparison with the big men, who use diesel fuel?

Mr. Butler: I am not quite sure that I can give an opinion upon the relative stature of the citizens involved, but I know that there is a great deal of feeling in farming circles on this subject. I am afraid, however, that I cannot go further than my answer on this occasion.

Chief Inspector of Taxes (Salary)

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the salary of the Chief Inspector of Taxes was increased from £2,750 to £3,000.

Mr. R. A. Butler: On 1st April, 1953.

Dr. Stross: Is it fair to say that this claim was met quite expeditiously and that there was no delay? Is it not a fact that in 1953 a claim was put forward on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Factories and the higher grades of his staff, which has been referred to a Royal Commission? Will the Chancellor explain why there has been so much delay? Can he give an assurance that when the claim is met there will be retrospective payment, in view of the delay?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I can give no answer to a question of such importance, to which I have not given the closest possible attention. I must confine myself to answering the Question on the Order Paper about the Chief Inspector of Taxes.

Disabled Persons (Tax Allowance)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the financial handicaps suffered by persons who, because of physical disability, have to incur extra expense not incurred by persons free from disability; and what regulations on Income Tax allowance or other relief he now makes and intends to make to such disabled persons in respect of such extra expense.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The only provision of this nature is Section 217 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which grants an allowance of £40 to a taxpayer who, by reason of old age or infirmity, has to depend on the services of a daughter resident with and maintained by him. The Royal Commission made certain recommendations on this matter which will be considered before next year with its other recommendations.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Chancellor realise that the Section to which he refers is quite inadequate to deal with the injustices envisaged in the Question? From his comprehensive knowledge of financial matters, does not he know that these injustices have been dealt with satisfactorily in other countries? Cannot Britain do as well as other countries in this matter?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and learned Gentleman does me too much honour in saying that I have a comprehensive knowledge of these matters. My knowledge is only relative, but it is supplemented by that of the Royal Commission which, as


I have said, has made certain recommendations which it is important that we should have time to consider.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Chancellor aware that if he decides to follow the very reasonable recommendations of the Royal Commission upon this matter of disabled persons, he will have the support of hon. Members on this side of the House?

Mr. Butler: I am glad to be aware of that attitude of mind on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Interest Rates (Local Authorities)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial assistance will be given to local authorities to enable them to meet the extra cost of the increased interest rates announced by him on 8th July.

Mr. R. A. Butler: None, Sir.

Mr. Hynd: Is not the Chancellor aware that this is a very heavy extra burden upon local authorities, and that there are plenty of precedents for giving extra assistance when extra expenditure is incurred? For example, only yesterday it was agreed to give fishing vessels extra subsidies to meet the increased cost of coal.

Mr. Butler: I am aware that this is an extra burden, but it is only bringing the rate up to market rate, and frankly, in the present position of the national economy, I think that my answer, namely, "None, Sir," is the right answer to give. Although I am afraid that it may impose a burden upon local authorities, they will have to take it.

Mr. Jay: Is it the policy of the Government that this burden should be borne either by higher rents or by higher rates?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that we need jump to such conclusions.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he had with the various associations of local authorities before he decided to increase the interest rates on local authority loans on 8th July.

Mr. R. A. Butler: None, Sir.

Mr. Hynd: Is it not most unusual to take an important decision of this kind—which so vitally affects the finances of local authorities—without even doing the local authority associations the courtesy of consulting them?

Mr. Butler: As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary remarked, the practice that we adopted has been inherited. One of my most distinguished predecessors—Sir Stafford Cripps—regarded such a course as being inevitable. As the Financial Secretary has declared in the course of debates in the House, we have been doing nothing unorthodox, much as I sympathise with local authorities.

Mr. Jay: Is the Chancellor aware that in 1952 his own Government granted extra financial assistance? Is it not inevitable that if he now decides not to do so, either rent or rates must be raised?

Mr. Butler: I cannot myself administer local authorities' finances; therefore, I cannot give hon. Members the answer to that question.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Chancellor explain what he meant by saying that in the present situation local authorities must bear this burden? Did he mean to imply that they must stop building so many houses, or simply that they would have to put up their rates?

Mr. Butler: I meant no more than I said to the conference of borough treasurers and representatives of finance committees at Folkstone the other day, namely, that the more economy in local government finance there is, the better it will be for all of us.

Public Works Loan Board

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total repayment, including interest, made to the Public Works Loan Board at the end of a 60-year loan; how much of that is required to pay the costs of administration; and how much is recovered by the Treasury.

Mr. R. A. Butler: At the current rate of interest the total amount repayable to the Board in respect of a loan of £100 for sixty years is £277 10s. No part of this sum is used to pay the costs of administration. The whole amount is


paid into the Exchequer and is used to meet the cost of the National Debt, which has, of course, been increased by the amount of the Board's loan.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Chancellor aware that local authorities regard it as somewhat cockeyed finance to overcharge them, then to give them subsidies to pay the overcharge, and then for the Treasury to make a profit out of the interest?

Mr. Butler: I do not accept the picture as detailed by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Woodburn: If the right hon. Gentleman is overcharging local authorities by way of interest on loans advanced in order to build houses—which, we understand, the Government want to encourage—and these amounts have to be charged to the rents in an unnecessary fashion, does not it strike him that it is a little upsetting for local authorities to find themselves involved in this kind of finance?

Mr. Butler: The amount of interest may appear to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House to be large, but it should be remembered that during the early years of the loan very little capital is repaid under the annuity method, so that a large part of the principal sum is outstanding for a fairly long period.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate management costs, per £100, of loans on housing from the Public Works Loan Board; to what extent such cost is taken into account in determining the interest charged on such loans; and whether any profit or surplus results to the Public Works Loan Board.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The management cost per £100 of loans made by the Public Works Loan Board is approximately 4s. An initial fee is charged for this, and no account is taken of it in determining the rate of interest. No profit or surplus results to the Board.

Mr. Woodburn: Am I to understand from the answer to the previous Question that the profit or surplus goes direct to the Treasury? Is there any reason why the Government should make a profit between different Departments of their own organisation?

Mr. Butler: As I said in reply to Question No. 10, the National Debt has been

increased by the amount of the Board's loan. I therefore think it not unreasonable that this very small financial transaction should be handled in the manner suggested.

Mr. Woodburn: I am glad of that explanation. Is this all that is taken to repay the principal, or is not that £277 considerably more than is necessary to repay the principal? What happens to the other £177?

Mr. Butler: I explained the reasons for the size of the interest in reply to Question No. 10. I am now asked a specific question about the costs of administration. I cannot add to my previous reply.

Capital Development (Nationalised Industries)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that his credit restrictions will not be permitted to hold up progress in the supply of coal and electric power and other services on the urgent supply of which our economic survival may depend.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I can assure the right hon. Member that there will continue to be very close contact between the Government and the boards of the nationalised industries regarding their programmes of essential capital development.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is important to use a selective method in the prevention of expenditure? If his method of a general onslaught, by the raising of interest rates, brings about a reduction in the power supplies which are essential if we are to put this country on the map, may it not have a very serious consequence upon the length of time required for this country to reach its proper place in the world?

Mr. Butler: I am aware that investment in power stations is more important than investment in certain other aspects of the Electricity Authority's programme, but I am quite certain that the various nationalised boards have the importance of priorities in mind.

Mr. Woodburn: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the necessity for a selective rather than general restriction upon credit facilities?

Mr. Butler: I recognise that there is need for intelligence, which exists not only in the boards of the nationalised industries but also in Her Majesty's Government.

Sir H. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend ask electricity undertakings not to borrow on short-term from the banks so as to lend on hire purchase?

Mr. Butler: We shall have to see about that.

Bank Advances

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in view of our balance of payments problems, he will give a directive to the Bank of England that firms concentrating on exports should receive preferential treatment as regards bank advances and other facilities as compared with firms mainly concerned with the home market;
(2) what is his monetary policy directed to encouraging manufacturers to increase their export sales.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have seen no reason to modify my request of 7th December, 1951, when the banks and accepting houses were asked to ensure the highest priority for our defence programme and for our exports.

Mr. Fletcher: May we take it from that reply that, in view of the restricted funds now available to banks for advances to local undertakings, it is the Government's policy that every preference should be given to exports?

Mr. Butler: Yes, provided it is understood that there are certain difficulties in differentiating the proportion of export activity within a particular business.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the response of the banks to the request contained in his statement of 24th February; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The request to the banks mentioned in my statement of 24th February was to adopt a more restrictive attitude towards finance for hire purchase. In response to this request, I understand that the banks decided to grant no new facilities for advances for the purpose of financing hire-purchase transactions and to allow no increase in

the existing limits of facilities available to any customers for this purpose.
This decision has been operating since early March, in conjunction with the restrictions on the terms of certain hire-purchase transactions imposed by the Board of Trade. I cannot go further at present than to say that my right hon. Friend the President and I are keeping a close watch on the operation of these restrictions.

Sterling Area (Dollar Imports)

Mr. Lee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what degree the sterling area is now dependent upon dollar imports of raw materials; how far such dependency is increasing; and which types of raw materials are involved.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In order to answer the hon. Member's question I must give a full reply.
Imports from dollar sources represent approximately one-third of the sterling area's total imports of raw materials from the non-sterling world. Materials which the sterling area draws wholly or in substantial proportion from dollar sources include aluminium, nickel, molybdenum, sulphur, synthetic rubber and manila hemp. There are also large imports, although forming a smaller proportion of total supplies, of cotton, softwood, wood-pulp, paper and copper.
It is not possible to provide any simple measure of whether the area as a whole is becoming more or less dependent on dollar supplies. New sources of supply are continually being developed both inside and outside the sterling area, and although I cannot speak for other Governments the extent to which U.K. importers have been given freedom of choice of sources has progressively increased.

Mr. Lee: Is the Chancellor satisfied with the tendencies of our trade with Canada? Secondly, would he agree that, if we are to go into the age of automation before long, we shall find that the absorption rate of raw materials in the world will be far greater than now, and that if we are to be dependent upon imports from the dollar area we may suffer a raw material famine? Would he consider what we can do to step up the geological survey in Britain and the Colonies and to find more geologists, technologists and people of that type?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The Government have given attention to the very important supplementary question which the hon. Member has asked. We are in process of seeing what alternative sources of supply there are in the conditions which the hon. Member states.

Approved Societies (Gilt-Edged Securities)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total investments of the approved societies in gilt-edged securities for 1925, 1935, 1945, and 1955, respectively.

Mr. R. A. Butler: This information is not readily available in the form requested by my hon. Friend, and could not be obtained without a disproportionate amount of work. I have, however, had some figures extracted, and I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Osborne: While thanking my right hon. Friend for those figures, which I hope to look at carefully, may I ask him to consider giving permission to approved societies to invest their funds in other than trustee securities, so as to save their members from the losses incurred from continuous inflation?

Mr. Butler: That is a separate question to which I should like to give consideration separately.

Following are the figures:


Total investments of friendly and collecting societies in British Government securities at 31st December


Friendly societies (a)


£ million


1935
…
…
19


1946
…
…
55


1951
…
…
62


Collecting societies





1935
…
…
5


1946
…
…
59


1952 (b)
…
…
73

NOTES:

(a) In consequence of the provisions of The National Insurance Act, 1946. there has since 1948 been no division of friendly societies into those approved for the purpose of collecting insurance contributions and distributing benefits, and those not so approved. The figures given above cover friendly societies without branches, and collecting societies; they exclude all friendly societies with branches (which accounted for about one quarter of total friendly society funds in 1951), the approved sections of friendly societies and insurance companies before 1948, industrial and provident societies, and the provident benefit section of trade unions.

(b) 1951 figures not available.

Shipbuilding Orders, Germany

Mr. Collick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he gave permission for the use of foreign currency by the Shaw Savill Shipping Company to enable it to place orders for three new vessels with German shipbuilders.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No specific permission was necessary. For nearly four years United Kingdom ship owners have been free to place orders for ships in European yards.

Mr. Collick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious concern felt among our own shipbuilding workers at the action of this company? Are the Government completely helpless, in view of the balance of payments problem, in handling a situation of this kind?

Mr. Butler: The Government are aware of the severe anxiety being felt. We are also aware of the possibility of retaliation in going back upon the policy which was, in fact, adopted in August, 1951, before this Government came into power. We have seen no reason to alter the general lines of this policy. Fortunately, incidents of this sort are not numerous.

Sterling (Convertibility)

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to make sterling fully convertible.

Mr. R. A. Butler: When the necessary conditions are satisfied.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the Chancellor not aware that at the present time the monetary markets of this country and of Europe are full of speculation about the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman is committing himself to a £ floating between more widely separated points than is at present the case, and that there is general agreement that this is doing harm to the position of sterling? Can the right hon. Gentleman make no statement before we adjourn to give information about his attitude and policy here, which can improve the position?

Mr. Butler: To do me justice, it should be said that I have never departed from the line of the statement which I have given to the hon. Member and to the House. It may be that it will help hon. Members to assess the position—whether


it is of assistance outside I do not know—to suggest that some of these stories may have emanated from the discussions going on in Paris about the possibility of altering the European Payments Union and introducing, at some date when any European currency may go free under conditions laid down, a system under which free currencies and fixed currencies can operate together in Europe. In order to do that we have had discussions in Paris involving the setting up a new system of clearing and a new system of a European Fund. That was a wise precaution because it may well be that circumstances may alter in Europe. It may be that out of those discussions certain rumours have sprung.

Mr. Jenkins: To what extent has the right hon. Gentleman been advocating in Paris that the £ should be allowed to fluctuate more widely at some date in the near future?

Mr. Butler: I have never altered my attitude or my statement of the conditions that must be fulfilled before convertibility can be introduced.

Mr. Gaitskell: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of making any change in the matter before the House reassembles in the autumn?

Mr. Butler: It is not reasonable to tie the hands of any Government with regard to the currency of the country. There is also no reason for me to depart from the statement I have made about the conditions for convertibility, namely, credit, a sound internal policy, and a widening of the boundaries of trade.

Mr. Gaitskell: As there will no doubt be discussions on this matter at the meeting of the International Monetary Fund, to which I believe the right hon. Gentleman is going, will he give us the assurance that, at least for the next three months, no change will be made; that he does not intend, for instance, to put forward any proposals in this direction at the meeting of the International Monetary Fund?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that any Chancellor of the Exchequer or Finance Minister of any country would tie his hands in relation to the currency. I cannot go further than the statement I have made on the subject of converti-

bility. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; there will no doubt be discussions with the Commonwealth and with European Ministers and so forth at the Bank and Fund meetings in the autumn. It would be wrong to build more than is right upon any statements that have been made or to go any degree further than I have done in my own statement.

Mr. Jenkins: Do the Chancellor's three conditions for convertibility include a larger gold reserve than at present exists?

Mr. Butler: All these matters are relevant. There is the pattern of trade, the state of one's reserves—the pattern of trade is most important—the availability of credit and the internal economy. It must be clear to the House that the state of the internal economy at the present time wants a certain degree of tightening up. These are matters to which we all ought to pay attention. These being the conditions, I should have thought there was no reason for further rumours or stories.

Gold Bullion (Imports)

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of gold imports into this country from the Soviet Union for the first and second six months of 1954, respectively.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Imports of gold bullion from all sources amounted in the first half of 1954 to about 9·9 million troy oz. with a value of about £123 million, of which about 1·3 million troy oz. with a value of about £16 million were imported from the Soviet Union. In the second half of 1954 imports from all sources amounted to about 6·1 million troy oz. with a value of about £76 million, but there were no imports from the Soviet Union. The hon. Member understands, I am sure, that the amount of gold imported does not necessarily correspond with the amount of gold purchased from overseas countries.

Queen's Hall (Committee's Report)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decision he has reached on the rebuilding of the Queen's Hall in the light of the report of the Committee appointed to consider the matter; and what alternative action he is taking.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am studying the Report of the Committee and am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has the Chancellor decided to accept the proposition put forward by the Committee that it will no longer be worth while for the Government to rebuild the Queen's Hall? In those circumstances, would it not be better to consult the London County Council as quickly as possible with a view to seeing that the additional amenities required are provided on the South Bank, which is the best place for the job?

Mr. Butler: I am interested in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's observations. It is precisely because there are certain consultations to be held with the London County Council that I am unable to give a final reply on the Queen's Hall before the Recess.

Mr. K. Robinson: Would the Chancellor also give very full consideration to the proposal in the Report to establish a music centre in the neighbourhood of Regent's Park?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. One of the troubles is that there are so many requests for art and music centres that I want to be quite sure that in the end I am doing the right thing.

Roumania and Bulgaria (Debts)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, while the trade negotiations with the Roumanians and the Bulgarians have proved unsuccessful because of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to old debts, the Americans have secured a large Bulgarian order for more than $1,000,000 of motor cars; and what his present policy is on this matter.

Mr. R. A. Butler: There is no trade agreement between the U.S.A. and Bulgaria. I understand that the order for motor cars mentioned by the hon. Member was obtained by an American merchant in the ordinary way of business. Her Majesty's Government place no obstacle in the way of the export of ordinary motor cars from the United Kingdom to Eastern European countries.
The bulk of our imports from these countries consists of raw materials and essential foodstuffs and is not subject to import restrictions. It is not, therefore,

affected by the negotiations in question which are concerned mainly with goods which we control by import licensing. It is our policy to withhold licences for these goods unless we can secure in return additional facilities for our exports and some provision for the settlement of outstanding debts and claims.

Mr. Davies: Is there any improvement in the discussions about the old and outstanding debts with Roumania and Bulgaria? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information on that at the moment?

Mr. Butler: There is not as much improvement as I should like to see, but the matter is still under discussion.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the Chancellor accept the implication in the Question that the negotiations on these two trade agreements have, in fact, broken down—or are the negotiations continuing?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to say that they had broken down.

War Damage Commission

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he expects to be able to close down the War Damage Commission; and when he expects the Commission to wind up its existing outstanding cases.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): No date has been fixed for winding up the War Damage Commission. As my hon. Friend will realise, the completion of outstanding cases does not depend on the Commission, but on when the owners of war-damaged properties are able to carry out the works of reinstatement.
Legislation would be necessary to wind up the Commission, and in view of the number of cases where war damage has yet to be made good, the time is not ripe for this.

Mr. Ridsdale: Can my right hon. Friend suggest any means by which appeals on outstanding cases can be speedily finalised, after preliminary hearing, other than by recourse to the courts, which is an extremely expensive form of appeal and one which many small individuals cannot afford?

Mr. Brooke: I think that what my hon. Friend suggests would require legislation. I am not sure, but I will look into it. Of course, what is compelling the work of the War Damage Commission to continue is mainly that it cannot make cost-of-works payments until the work of repair has been carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Racing Track Project, Peak National Park

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will use his powers under Section 3 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, to issue an instruction to the Commission to prohibit the creation of motor car and cycle racing tracks in the Peak National Park.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The National Parks Commission has no power to prohibit such a project.

Mr. Roberts: Would not the Minister agree, however, that, although the motor industry needs this racing for experimental purposes, it is not really desirable in the public interest that public roads in national parks should be used for this purpose?

Mr. Sandys: I do not want to express any view on the merits of the scheme. All I would say is that if the Derbyshire County Council decides to proceed with this scheme it will, I understand, seek the necessary powers by means of a Private Bill, in which case Parliament will, of course, have full opportunity to examine the issues involved.

Piped Water Supply

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give an estimate of the percentage of the population of England and Wales which is without a piped water supply.

Mr. Sandys: About 3 per cent.

Mr. Hall: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of when a piped water supply is likely to be available to everyone in the country?

Mr. Sandys: That I cannot say.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give an estimate of the percentage of the population resident within the area of the Wycombe Rural District Council which is without a piped water supply.

Mr. Sandys: The Census of 1951 gave a figure, for the Wycombe rural district, of about 13 per cent., compared with an average of about 20 per cent. in rural districts generally. The current estimate is 6 per cent., compared with an average of 12 per cent. in rural districts generally.

Mr. Hall: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that in the Wycombe rural district there have been a number of cases where the spring and well-borne supplies have dried up even before the hot weather, and that the absence of piped water supplies in the rural areas is another of the main contributory causes of the movement of rural population into the towns? Can he not do a great deal more than is being done at present to encourage the development and provision of piped water supplies in these areas?

Mr. Sandys: I am doing what I can over the country as a whole to try to accelerate the provision of piped water supplies to the rural areas.

Mr. Hayman: Would the Minister be prepared to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the interest rates on rural water supply schemes?

Mr. Sandys: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend heard that Question.

Stevens versus Birmingham Corporation

Mr. D. Howell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he has considered the case of Stevens versus Birmingham Corporation, heard at Birmingham Assizes on 1st April, 1954; if he has considered the statement of the judge in giving judgment for the defendants regarding the desirability of making an ex gratia payment; and, as such payments are ultra vires, whether he will consider introducing legislation to give local authorities more discretion in such matters.

Mr. Sandys: I have sympathy with the victim in this case; but in view of the difficult issues of law and policy which it raises, the hon. Member should not


assume that it will necessarily be possible to introduce legislation on the lines proposed.

Mr. Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this, again, is causing considerable difficulty to local authorities? Is he aware that in this case the bus driver was convicted of careless driving, and that Birmingham Corporation therefore feels that it has a very strong moral obligation, such as that which it had, for example, when it went to Mablethorpe? Is the Minister aware that that was a similar case where thousands of pounds were spent by a local authority without, as far as I can see, any Statute allowing it to do so? Nevertheless, we did it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is the Minister aware that the present law needs drastic revision, and will he not consult the local authority associations to this end?

Mr. Sandys: As I said, this raises very much wider issues of policy, but it is because of the special circumstances of this case that in my earlier reply I expressed my sympathy with the victim.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to introduce some legislation to give local authorities discretionary power to make payments in cases where any decent person would want to make them and where the local authority itself wants to make them?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman merely repeated the point in the Question. I am aware of the issue and I am looking at it, but it is by no means easy because it raises very much wider issues than those raised in this case.

Mr. Howell: On a point of order. May give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment?

New Town Corporations (Composition)

Mr. Ainsley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the anxiety on the Durham County Council at his refusal to consider a nomination from the County Planning Committee for membership to either Newton Aycliffe or Peterlee New Town Corporations; and if he will give consideration to selecting a member from the

committee as vacancies arise on the corporations, as a link between the corporations and the county council.

Mr. Sandys: In deciding the composition of new town corporations, I am naturally happy to receive suggestions from any responsible quarter. I cannot, however, accept the principle that a local authority has a right to insist upon the appointment of one of its members.

Mr. Ainsley: Is the Minister aware that at the inception of these new town corporations in Durham the county council was approached and asked for nominations? Is he aware that it would be to the advantage of the county and the new towns for there to be liaison in the allocation of projects between the new towns and the rest of the county?

Mr. Sandys: I think I am following the principles adopted by my predecessors, including my predecessors in the Labour Government, in this matter.

Mr. Shinwell: As Peterlee is in my constituency, may I have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that before he takes any action on the lines indicated he will consult the Easington Rural District Council, in whose area the town of Peterlee is situated, because the council has prior right to be consulted?

Mr. Sandys: Consultation is quite another matter from accepting nominations from councils to include one of their members on the corporation. The Act provides that certain consultations are required with the local authorities concerned, and, naturally, I conform to my statutory obligations.

Green Belt, Crawley

Mr. Gough: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that, five years ago, when Mr. and Mrs. Holland, bought their house, known as The Cottage in the Wood, Worth, Sussex, it appeared on the master plan of the Crawley Development Corporation as being within a green belt; and why Mr. and Mrs. Holland were not informed when this green belt area was altered.

Mr. Sandys: This land was never at any time zoned as part of a green belt.

Mr. Gough: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Holland has been shamefully treated in this matter; that he was given an assurance by the Crawley Development Corporation at the time he bought this house that it was in a green belt and that he was shown a master plan to that effect; that that was also confirmed by the local authority, and that he has never been notified of any change? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the appeal by Mr. Holland's neighbour which has recently been upheld by his Ministry was a travesty of justice, as Mr. Holland received only two days' notice of this appeal and could not even be represented at it? Would my right hon. Friend do something about it?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know about the circumstances to which my hon. Friend referred in the latter part of his supplementary question. All I would say is that if the purchaser was under the impression that his property was in the green belt, there was a misunderstanding. Even if it had been in the green belt, it is quite possible that the construction of this house—to which objection has been taken—between Mr. Holland's house and the neighbouring would none the less have been approved. It does not follow that because it was in the green belt it would have been improper to put an additional house between two existing houses already in the green belt.

Mr. Gough: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Middlesex Families (New Towns)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many families from Middlesex have obtained housing accommodation in the new towns since 6th May, 1953; and how many of these families obtained their accommodation by means of the industrial selection scheme.

Mr. Sandys: Since that date about 4,000 families from Middlesex have been housed in the new towns around London. Of these at least 2,000 obtained their

accommodation by reason of the fact that they were employees of firms moving from Middlesex to the new towns.

Mrs. Butler: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that that does not answer my Question in relation to the industrial selection scheme? I wanted the figures for the industrial selection scheme, and the 2,000 families he has mentioned did not, I take it, all come through that scheme.

Mr. Sandys: It is rather difficult to say what is included in the industrial selection scheme. I can say that the figure—which, incidentally was 4,000, not 2,000—does include 400 families who were specially recruited by firms after they had decided to move out from Middlesex to the new towns. I think that that provides the hon. Lady with the figures she wants.

Local Authority Lists (Urgent Applications)

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the number of urgent housing applications at present on the lists of local housing authorities; and what steps he is taking to speed up the supply of new houses to deal with these urgent cases.

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to ensure that those whose housing needs are most urgent are given priority.

Mr. Sandys: I am aware that there are still many families without satisfactory housing accommodation. The continuance of house building at a high rate is the best way to help them. We must, I think, rely upon local authorities to allot their houses to those families who have the greatest need.

Mr. Gibson: In view of that reply, how is it that the Minister and his Department are, in fact, imposing restrictions on the number of houses that local housing authorities are allowed to build? Is he aware that unless in all our large towns—including London—there is a very substantial increase in the number of houses built to be let, there will be many scores of thousands of urgent cases which cannot be housed?

Mr. Mitchison: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet found a better explanation than the weather for the fact that there were 40,000 fewer houses under construction by local authorities at the end of the last quarter than there were a year ago?

Mr. Sandys: There is a later Question on that subject on the Order Paper.

Miss Lee: May I ask the Minister to reply to my Question, No. 53, in which I asked what steps he is taking to help in solving this problem? Is he aware that nothing he has yet said has been helpful? Is he also aware that, if the policy of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer continues, the people who need houses most will be put at the back of the queue and not at the front?

Mr. Sandys: What we are doing is to maintain a high rate of house building—[HON. MEMBERS: "A high rate of interest."]—a high rate of house building for letting and for sale.

Urban Congestion (Discussions)

Mr. D. Howell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has considered the difficulties arising to local authorities in dealing with overspill, by virtue of the fact that no powers exist whereby they can exercise the right to place tenants from housing registers into houses from which tenants have been rehoused by the local authority; and whether he is in a position to give the Government policy upon this matter and to introduce legislation to give the local authority powers.

Mr. Sandys: I propose shortly to arrange to meet a deputation from some of the local authorities principally affected, to discuss with them generally the problem of relieving urban congestion. Meanwhile I have no statement to make.

Mr. Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement will be received with some satisfaction by local authorities? Is he aware that the fact that landlords invariably sell rented houses immediately the tenants have died or been rehoused, and that people are thus attracted into areas from which we are trying to overspill, is the greatest obstacle to the solution of the problem of overspill, apart perhaps from the

question of land? Will the Minister bear that particularly in mind in the discussions which he intends to have?

Mr. Sandys: I am glad to feel that I have given the hon. Member some satisfaction.

Vacant Requisitioned Properties (Reletting)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the number of applications received from local authorities for permission to relet requisitioned properties which have become vacant, and the number of applications which have been approved.

Mr. Sandys: So far, scarcely any such applications have been dealt with.

Mr. Collins: Will the Minister say whether, in view of the short time in which such applications have to be considered under the Act—one month—he proposes to set up any special machinery for their consideration and to issue any advice to local authorities on this subject?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know what machinery the hon. Member has in mind. I have not the Act before me, but, if my memory is correct, the time permitted to the Minister to consider these applications is unlimited.

Allocations

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give an assurance to local authorities that he will increase the yearly housing allocation of each authority by a number equal to the number of temporary prefabricated houses to be demolished by it in the year.

Mr. Sandys: The number of families in temporary dwellings who require to be rehoused is, of course, one of the factors which are taken into account when considering the size of a local authority's building programme.

Mr. Page: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, which I am sure will give satisfaction, may I ask him whether he realises the dilemma in which he places local authorities at the moment in asking them for a return of the number of prefabricated houses to be demolished


when they are not certain whether they will get an allocation of houses to replace them?

Mr. Sandys: It is a case of the chicken and the egg. We must know the intentions of local authorities before we can decide what size their building programme ought to be. The purpose of the circular was merely to find what the local authorities concerned would like to do in the matter of the demolition of temporary houses.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he improves the hatch by giving all the eggs to private builders?

Slum Clearance Schemes

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will cause to be published in the quarterly housing summaries a table, showing the total number of new houses and flats built, as part of local authority slum clearance schemes.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. I am at present considering how the Quarterly Housing Returns could be amended to provide this information in the most convenient form.

Local Authority Houses (Sale)

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date permission was given to local councils to sell houses built by them; the number of houses sold since then; and what percentage of the total houses built by councils this figure represents.

Mr. Sandys: General consent was given to local authorities to sell council houses to sitting tenants, by circular dated 26th August, 1952. Up to the end of last month 3,868 council houses had been sold under these arrangements. This represents about 0·7 per cent. of the total number of council houses built during that period.

Miss Lee: Will the Minister please carefully study the Answer that he has now given and realise that those who can buy houses and those who rent them are not interchangeable and, therefore, the need at present is to speed up the building of houses to rent and not to penalise people who can afford only to rent houses?

Mr. Sandys: The increasing number of houses being built by private enterprise and sold reduces the number of people who wish to buy council houses.

Programme

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by how many houses council house building has declined comparing 1953, 1954 and the current year; and by how many houses private building has increased in these same three periods.

Mr. Sandys: The figures asked for are contained in the published Housing Returns.

Miss Lee: Could not the Minister have given those figures? Is it not sometimes the custom to give figures, although they are in reports, as they are of great interest? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to study the figures, because they bear out the contention that people who have to rent houses are having an extremely raw and worsening deal from the Government?

Mr. Sandys: In not reading out a series of figures from reports, I was following the practice well established by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan).

Mr. Mitchison: Do not those figures in fact show that during the first five months of this year there was a fall of 9,000 in the number of council houses built compared with last year? What explanation has the right hon. Gentleman, other than the weather, for that fact and for the fact that the number under construction is 40,000 fewer than it was last year? Is not the real reason that the right hon. Gentleman is cutting down allocations?

Mr. Sandys: In the first five months of this year public authorities built 88,500 houses, which is substantially more than in any corresponding period under the Labour Government.

NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that adequate precautions will be taken to prevent injury to people in other countries from clouds of radioactive dust when the British hydrogen bomb is exploded; and.if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir" and to the second part "No, Sir."

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the complacency of his reply is not shared by people outside? Is he further aware that the scientists of the world do not share his complacency on this question, and that there is no responsible person who agrees that it is yet possible to prevent air currents carrying this dust to other lands and other peoples? Would it not be more civilised to stop the experiment altogether?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the latter part of the supplementary question is, "No, Sir." The answer to the first part is that there is no question of complacency in the reply I gave on behalf of the Prime Minister, which had been most carefully thought out with the best scientific information available. The answer is, if anything, cautious but not complacent.

Mr. H. Morrison: Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether he is satisfied that there is no risk of trouble for other people as a result of these explosions, and whether the Government have considered holding up the experiment—by international agreement, not by us acting alone—pending the discussions at Geneva as an outcome of which we hope this business will be stopped altogether?

Mr. Butler: Naturally we all hope that the outcome of the Geneva talks will have that very desirable result, but I am afraid I could not go further than the Answer I have given this afternoon.

Mr. Morrison: On the first part of the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman, could he say whether the Government are satisfied that as a result of these explosions there is no danger to the physical well-being either of our own people or of people in other countries?

Mr. Butler: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), the Answer I gave was based on the best advice that has been available to Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I can give no further answer.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Chancellor agree that, whatever may be the actual risk of any particular explosion, the proposal to ban further test explosions holds the field as the only practical first step in nuclear disarmament?

Mr. Butler: That question raises very wide issues. Of course there is a great deal of value in the suggestion made by the right hon. Member.

COLONIAL OFFICE

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to change the name of the Colonial Office to one more consonant with modern developments.

Mr. R. A. Butler: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion to introduce legislation on this subject at the present time.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister when he has time—say in the autumn—to give further consideration to this matter, which, I suggest, would bring a great deal of satisfaction to a great many people?

Mr. Butler: I am, of course, aware of the underlying motives of the Question put by my hon. Friend. I am also aware of the traditions and honour behind this title, to which I think we should also pay attention. Of course, I will bring my hon. Friend's Question to the attention of the Prime Minister, but I cannot give any guarantee that he will alter his opinion.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am a Colonial, and proud to be one, but a great deal of time has passed since I was a child?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member, like so many of the colonial dependencies, has grown up and increased in stature and honour.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS (COMMITTEE)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce when it is proposed to appoint a committee to inquire into the problems of practice and procedure in relation to administrative tribunals.

Mr. R. A. Butler: My right hon. Friend hopes to send invitations within the next week or ten days to those he would like to sit on this Committee.

BOARDS OF NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (SALARIES)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister to which Minister questions affecting the salaries paid to members of the boards of nationalised industries should be addressed.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Questions about the pay and membership of the board of a nationalised industry should be put to the Minister responsible for making appointments to the Board.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that on 6th July I put a Question to the Minister responsible asking what salary Lord Balfour of Inchrye was being paid as a part-time member of the board of B.E.A.C. and the Minister referred me to a White Paper which is to be published next December? Is the Chancellor further aware that since this Question was put down I received a letter from the Minister, yesterday, telling me that Lord Balfour is to be paid £500 a year? Why did he not answer that Question on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Butler: I have certainly followed this voluminous series of Questions and Answers and the correspondence, which I have with me this afternoon. I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member has at last received the answer he so much desired.

FOUR-POWER CONFERENCE, GENEVA

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he is making at Geneva to establish a pattern of trade which can take care of possible unemployment in the armaments industry if the conference is successful.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It would be premature to anticipate the results of the Geneva Conference, or any action which Her Majesty's Government may need to take as a result. But any relief to the

economy which that Conference may make possible should be accepted as a fresh opportunity for developing our pattern of economic growth and reinforcing our policy of liberating and expanding international trade.

Mr. Craddock: Will the Chancellor be good enough to mention this matter to the Prime Minister, because this is a study that ought to be made now, as we are all hopeful of the outcome of the Geneva Conference and similar conferences for world peace?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I not only discussed this matter with the Prime Minister before he left, but I shall also see that the Question put by the hon. Member is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Russian Defence Minister is included in the Russian delegation to Geneva, and that both the French and the Russian Prime Ministers have expressed the desire to reach decisions of principle on disarmament at the summit talks, he will invite the Minister of Defence to join him at Geneva.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will augment the delegation if he considers it desirable.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that public opinion expects the Prime Minister to give the question of disarmament high priority in the Geneva talks? Would not inclusion in the delegation of the Minister of Defence, who has had a great deal of experience in these matters, be an earnest of the desire of the Government to attempt to close the small remaining gap between the Western and the Soviet viewpoints on this question?

Mr. Butler: There is absolute sympathy of opinion between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence. The Prime Minister is well aware of the experience and attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Defence. I think we must leave the matter to the discretion of the Prime Minister.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S MEETINGS)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the subjects discussed and decisions reached at his series of conferences in 10, Downing Street, which ended on 8th July, 1955, with the chairmen of the nationalised industries and at the previous conferences with those chairmen and with representatives of the Trades Union Conference and of the British Employers Federation;

(2) what subjects affecting Scottish trade and industry were discussed and what decisions were reached at his recent series of conferences at 10, Downing Street with the chairmen of the nationalised industries.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The meetings which my right hon, Friend the Prime Minister has had recently with representatives of the British Employers' Confederation, the nationalised industries and the Trades Union Congress have given him a welcome opportunity to hear at first hand their views on the present state of industrial relations. The discussions, which were informal and exploratory, were of a general nature and will be followed up by further talks between my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and the representatives concerned. The subject of industrial relations has, in fact, been placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the National Joint Advisory Council on 27th July.

Mr. Hughes: Did the meetings discuss the losses which the nation has sustained by the disintegration of the transport system?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to go into further detail than has been given in my statement.

Mr. Bevan: Is it intended to inform the House of the progress of these consultations?

Mr. Butler: I have just indicated that the matter is now to be taken further by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour at the next meeting of the N.J.A.C. That is as far as we can say, but the House will, of course, be kept informed of any development.

SCOTLAND (CROFTERS COMMISSION)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. N. MCLEAN: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to make an announcement of the members of the Crofters Commission.

Mr. GRIMOND: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what salaries are to be paid to the Chairman and members of the Crofters Commission;
(2) if he will now announce the name of the chairman of the Crofters Commission.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement in reply to Questions Nos. 67, 72 and 73, concerning the Crofters Commission.
I am proposing to seek an Order in Council bringing the Crofters (Scotland) Act into operation on 1st October next and the Crofters Commission will assume office on that date. I am appointing Sir Robert William Urquhart, K.B.E., C.M.G., LL.D., as Chairman of the Commission and Mr. Alasdair R. Mackenzie, of Heathmount, Tain, and Mr. John McNaughton, C.B.E., of Oban, as the other full-time members. I am not yet in a position to make a complete statement about part-time members but I will do so as soon as possible.
The Chairman, Sir Robert William Urquhart, will be appointed for a period of five years at a salary of £3,000 a year. The other full-time members, Mr. Mackenzie and Mr. McNaughton, will be appointed for a period of five years at salaries of £2,000 a year. Part-time members will be paid salaries of £500 a year. None of the appointments will be pensionable.
The Secretary of the Commission will be Mr. D. J. MacCuish, M.A., LL.B., and their Chief Technical Officer will be Mr. A. MacArthur, N.D.A., C.D.A. Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. McNaughton and the two principal officers mentioned are Gaelic speakers.
The headquarters of the Commission will be at Inverness.

Mr. Woodburn: Where is to be the locus of the Commission?

Mr. Stuart: I stated that the headquarters of the Commission will be in Inverness.

Mr. McLean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will give great satisfaction in the Highlands and Islands, where the people are awaiting with impatience for the Commission to start its work, and that we wish it the best success in dealing with the complicated and difficult crofting problems?

HEALTH SERVICES, SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

3.33 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Today we are to discuss health services in Scotland. The Reports from the Department of Health for Scotland and the Scottish Health Services Council cover a wide field and it would be quite impossible in this short debate for me or for all those who speak to cover even what we would consider to be the urgent and vital matters contained in those Reports. I intend to concentrate on what I regard as one of the most important matters covered in the Reports, and later to ask a few questions about a number of other subjects.
The matter on which I wish to concentrate is the care of our old people. I think all of us would agree, no matter on which side of the House we sit, that, in spite of the provisions so far made for old people, the plight today of some of our old men and women could be described only as tragic. It is not until all our old people are really well cared for that any of us have the right to be at all complacent in this matter.
There are many facets of the problem of old people. Most people will agree, I think, that the very best place for old people is in their own homes and that everything possible should be done to keep as many of our old men and our old women in their own homes as long as it is possible to keep them. For a number of reasons, old people are much happier in an environment which they know. They are happy when they have around them all those things that they have gathered together over the years, all those things which they cherish and which mean very much to them. Above all, they are happier in their own homes because they can still hold on to a feeling of independence. Therefore, I begin from the point that as a Government and as a nation, including local authorities, we ought to do everything we possibly can to keep our old people in their own homes.
Are we doing sufficient for our old people? If we are honest, I think that the answer must be a quite emphatic "No." After having decided to devote the main part of my speech to this problem, I was interested at lunch-time today to find in the "Scotsman" a leader on the care of the aged. In it, I found these words:
For it is now becoming clear, as has been borne out by our correspondence columns, that before many years are over the care of the aged will be one of our main social problems.
We do not have to wait until even one year is over for the care of the aged to be one of our main social problems. I think that the care of the aged is one of our main social problems today.
That leader went on to say:
Those most closely associated with the services recognise that their existing scale is inadequate, and that this inadequacy may become much more pronounced unless public interest is quickened.
The writer was commenting on a survey given yesterday by Mr. H. R. Smith, of the Department of Health, and I am in full agreement with that statement.
If we are to attempt all that we ought to do for our old people, there are a number of things to which we must give serious attention. First, if old people are to be able to live in their own homes, they must have adequate money for their needs. I know that if I tried to develop that theme, Mr. Speaker would quite rightly say that this was not the debate in which to develop that matter. I would say, however, that there is no doubt that the latest financial provisions made by the Government for old people are hopelessly inadequate. They are particularly so for the over one million old people who are the very worst off.
Since the Secretary of State for Scotland has the responsibility in Scotland for the health and welfare of old people, he ought to be using some of his charm and his ability on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have him ensure very quickly that all our old people will have money adequate for their needs. I pointed out in a previous debate that the wants of old people are not very great, but even these simple wants cannot be satisfied today.
There is another matter which would help considerably in keeping old people in their homes. Provision for houses for

old people should be made in every local authority housing scheme, and such houses should have facilities suited to the needs of old people. Facilities to suit the needs of young people do not always meet the needs of the old. I know that certain local authorities have done very good work in building houses suitable for old people, but too few of these houses have been built so far. I hope that members of local authorities will read reports of this debate and take heed of what is said by all who speak in it.
The Secretary of State could use his position to urge local authorities in Scotland to pay greater attention to the provision of houses for old people in all their housing schemes. It is not only a question of the interior of the houses meeting the needs of old people. Old people do not want to be isolated. If they were housed in housing estates where there are young couples with children they could see the children play and the young children, who often love to do it, could visit them and talk to them. In other words, the old people would have the companionship which so many of them lack at present.
I have heard of cases where local authorities have not only built houses for old people, but have placed a house at the disposal of a person called a "warden." The warden's job is to act almost as a guardian angel for old people, to see that they are not lying ill in bed and unattended. I am sure that most hon. Members will appreciate the kind of work that such a warden could do for old people without my elaborating it further. The Secretary of State and the local authorities should give some attention to the provision of a warden or guardian who would be motherly and kind to old people.
Another factor which would help to keep old people in their homes is the much wider provision of a home help service. The existing service has proved a real godsend to thousands of old people in Scotland. The Reports of the Department of Health for Scotland and the Scottish Health Services Council for 1954 show that all but two of the fifty-five local authorities in Scotland provide domestic help. I should like to know which two local authorities are so reactionary that they have not taken steps to provide this most essential service not


only for old people but for other people who sometimes desperately need home help. I should like also to know how many of the fifty-three authorities which provide home help engage a sufficient number of home helps to meet all the needs.
The Reports state that there is an increasing demand for this service. Is the number of home helps keeping in step with the increasing demand? My information inclines me to think that it is not. I also find that 49 per cent. of all the home helps in the country are used for the care of chronic sick including the aged and infirm. Does the 49 per cent. cover all the old people who can definitely do with this invaluable help?
How many local authorities provide home helps at night? Quite a number of old people might possibly manage without home help during the day but very much need help during the night. Are local authorities providing these home helps? In some cases, because they have no help during the night, old people have to leave their homes and go to a residential home. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House information on this subject. If he cannot, I hope that the Department will take steps to find out and to urge that, if this service is not provided at present, it certainly should be provided by local authorities.
Accidents in the home are one of the greatest causes of tragedy among old people. The home help can assist greatly in avoiding these accidents. The local authority in Edinburgh issues fire-guards on loan to mothers of young children. Fire-guards should be available in the homes of old people where there are open fires. Old people are frail and unsteady on their feet and it would be a great comfort to those who are interested in their welfare to know that they have this minimum safeguard. All local authorities could very well follow the example of Edinburgh, and I hope that the local authority in Edinburgh will extend the service there to cover the homes of old people.
A much better provision of meals in their own homes would also help greatly in keeping old people in their homes. One of their difficulties, if they are a

little infirm or frail, is the inability to cook for themselves even one substantial meal a day. If there were much greater provision of meals at home, a number of old people who ultimately find themselves in residential homes could well remain in their own home for a number of years longer. The Reports state that meal services are provided in forty-six areas. We should like to know which areas do not provide even a skeleton service of meals for old people.
It is true that about thirty are using the school meals kitchens, and where they are used the project has been a great success. It seems to me that where such kitchens can be used there is no excuse for not providing this service of at least one good substantial meal each day. I feel that very much more could be done here than is being done. Even where local authorities and voluntary organisations, some of whom are doing wonderful work, make this provision, it is covering only a very small percentage of these old folk. I hope that the Secretary of State, through the local authorities, will do everything possible to increase the provision of meals. I know that wonderful work is being done in one of our villages by a voluntary organisation, but if one looks at all the villages even in my constituency there are many where not one meal is provided at all.
One of the most distressing complaints from which old people suffer is trouble with their feet. Because they are not having chiropody treatment that will help them in this matter, many of them find themselves in residential homes or as patients in hospital using beds which are badly needed for other cases. Are we doing anything here? Again, I fear, the answer must be "No."
I find that twenty-six authorities in all—I have included the ones offering a partial service—have some kind of chiropody service, but even those twenty-six authorities do not cover by any means all the old folk who desperately need this treatment. It seems to me we cannot be satisfied until there is for every old man and woman in every village and town easy access to a chiropody service.
There are two other points on which I want to touch. One of the worst evils affecting old people is loneliness. Many of them attain a great old age and,


by outliving their friends, cannot have the companionship to which they were accustomed. Often in the newspapers we read that an old person has died and that death was discovered because milk bottles or newspapers remained on the doorstep for several days. What that old person must have suffered before death brought relief! This is not something that can be organised by the Secretary of State, but the local authorities might help with it because it is really the very best form of voluntary work.
Some of our churches do good work here, but I say quite frankly, as a member of the Church of Scotland, that even our churches are not doing all they can to help to expel loneliness from the lives of these people. Our church guilds could do a great deal more than they are doing. Each member of a guild might make herself responsible for at least one home in which an old man, an old woman or an old couple are living. In almost every village and town there is a Co-operative Women's Guild and in the main, they, like the church guilds, do good service. But, here again, more could be done than is being done.
We have our youth organisations attached to the churches and to other bodies. Some old people are not able to do their own shopping, and that could easily be done for them by arranging for volunteers from these organisations in each village and community, who would be willing to undertake this work. Some old people are not very able to do their shopping, but prefer to go about it. They feel they want the companionship that they meet in the shops. Here, again, volunteers from the organisations I have mentioned could accompany them to the shops, because many street accidents are caused by frail old people being unable to cope with the traffic. These are some of the ways in which the voluntary bodies could help.
The last point with which I want to deal is places for old people. The Secretary of State and his Department might help with finances much more than is being done now. Some of the local authorities have done good work, but some could have done much more to provide in each community a place where these old folk could congregate and meet their friends, where they could sit and talk or play games if they wanted

games. But so many of them just want to sit and talk about old times. Just across the road from where I live the local authority has opened a hut, which is surrounded by a little garden for the aged. It is wonderful to see the old men just sitting in that hut talking, but there is nothing for the old women.
I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will add to the list of things that could be done to keep our old people in their homes, in comfort, in cleanliness, and well fed, all of which would ensure their happiness. I know that this particular facet of the problem is that if everything I have mentioned were achieved, we still would have a number of them for whom provision other than in their own homes would have to be made. What is the present provision for them? I know that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will tell us that that has greatly improved since 1948, but that it is far from adequate.
Those responsible for the accommodation which is provided will also agree with this. The local authorities, or the voluntary organisations working for them, provide accommodation, I understand, for about 4,740 old people and the voluntary and private homes provide accommodation for 4,300. I am not sure, from reading the Reports, whether the latter figure includes accommodation which they provide for the local authorities, but if it does not, as far as I can gather from the Reports, in these residential homes we have 9,000 places for old men and old women. Under the Act of 1948 the local authorities have provided 62 new homes either in old buildings that had been used for some other purpose or in completely new buildings.
Has every local authority used the provisions under the Act? In other words, is there any local authority in Scotland which, since July, 1948, has made no new provision for its old people? I feel that far greater urgency needs to be shown in the provision of these residential homes than so far has been shown. Here again, the Secretary of State could help greatly by urging the local authorities to do much more than some of them have done already.
Then there is the great problem of the chronic sick and of what are sometimes called the senile. This is where all of us have failed most. This afternoon I am trying to make no party point but to focus


not only the attention of this House, but the attention of the nation, on this great problem. Far too many of our old people are in beds in mental institutions, which is a great disgrace on all of us. Sometimes they are termed "confused"—confused just because they are old and because they are losing some of their faculties. How wrong to dub them as mental patients. Yet I have been told that often this is the only way of finding accommodation for them and, because they are a little confused in mind, they find themselves in a mental institution.
Not only do some of them go into the observation wards of mental institutions, but a number of others are certified as mental patients. This is a disgrace for decent old men and women who have led good lives for many years. And not only is it wrong for them, but it is bad for their families and for succeeding generations, because it is then said that they had a relation in a mental institution. I know that we are beginning to adopt a different attitude towards mental illness, which is more and more coming to be regarded as equivalent to physical illness, but there is still some stigma attached to it and we ought not to allow this to continue.
What can we do that we have not done? In Scotland, we have emergency hospitals, four of which were built and ordered to take the war casualties of the Second World War. The one I know best now provides accommodation for between 700 and 800 people. It is an excellent hospital which has built up its prestige quickly but in it, as in others, old people are using beds which they should not be using.
When I look at that emergency hospital, which is airy, clean and sunny, I think that we could provide quickly, perhaps attached to our general hospitals, a similar type of accommodation which would meet the needs of our old people for beds. Not only would this make more beds available for urgent cases and give us a quicker turnover, but it would make it possible for us to use, in the care of old people who often do not need specialised nursing attention, many motherly types of women who would be glad to do that work. In other words, what in a way emergency we could erect so quickly it is incumbent on us at this stage to provide, first, to prevent our old people from

going into mental hospitals and, secondly, to free the beds in our general hospitals. In addition, this kind of accommodation would meet the needs of many old people who are still in their own homes but who need care.
Now I want to touch briefly on three other points quite different from the ones I have dealt with already. The first I have raised by Questions in this House and in an Adjournment debate. The Report, in page 24, deals with tuberculosis and, in reference to the waiting list, states:
The waiting list for hospital treatment has been reduced during the year from 1,794 to 515. …. The reduction has not been matched by a proportionate fall in the number of new notifications or an increase in hospital beds but has followed recent surveys of the lists. ….
I have asked before, and I should like to know today, what the recent surveys did to bring down the waiting list. If it was by increasing domiciliary and outpatient management, are we certain that the number of people who have been taken from the list and are now classed as patients who can be treated at home will not be infecting other people? If we are not certain of that, it is wrong to reduce the waiting list in this way. I ask this question because I find at the end of the paragraph these words:
A careful adjustment between demand and provision is needed at all times.
That sentence has something sinister for me—"A careful adjustment between demand and provision." In other words, we have so many beds that we can use, and, instead of saying that we have a big waiting list, we adjust it by saying that we will take so many off the list and treat them in their homes. The hon. Gentleman must tell us clearly whether that number has been reduced by leaving people at home who might infect others. If that is the case, then it is one of the greatest indictments that could be levelled against the Government.
My second point concerns the remuneration of chemists. We find, in page 38 of the Reports, a paragraph dealing with this matter, which was raised by the Public Accounts Committee, and it was very dissatisfied with the way in which the remuneration was computed for chemists in Scotland. I find that the the Scotish Office took cognisance of this, and we are told that it referred it to the arbitration tribunal set up in 1951. The


members of the tribunal ruled that what the chemists are getting at present is in accordance with the award made in 1951. Does that mean that our Ministers have decided to do nothing more about the very strong point which was made in the Public Accounts Committee, which pointed out clearly that chemists in Scotland were doing very much better financially than chemists in England?
My last point—and this is perhaps a hobby-horse of mine—is that we have in Scotland only one unit in a hospital which specifically deals with the treatment of men suffering from pneumoconiosis. I have asked the Government to establish a unit near every coalfield in Scotland. So far, they have resisted that request, yet tomorrow we are to have a debate on coal which will probably discuss, among other things, the lack of recruits to the coal industry. It is not surprising that there should be lack of recruits when we realise that miners suffer from this disease, and that so little has been done, both in research and in providing units, to deal with them. I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in that debate, when some will be elaborating this, and that others will be bringing forward fresh points in this matter of the health of our people in Scotland.

4.12 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I followed with the very greatest interest the speech of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), and particularly her references to the care of the old people, a matter which, I have always thought, has been rather neglected in our country when compared with the care given to youth.
We have heard so much emphasis put on youth that I think that many of our young people are beginning to think that they are entitled to all kinds of things, without any effort on their part. I think that the real tragedy—the hon. Lady used that word—is that some of our old people are discovered, quite unexpectedly sometimes, to be living entirely by themselves, without a soul in the world who has the slightest interest in their well-being. In some cases—I hope a very few cases—callous relatives have neglected them, and in others all their friends and relations have died.
We have in Perth a society known as the Society for Indigent Old Men. It may have an old-fashioned, early-Victorian title, but it deals with these old men whom we find in the back streets in Perth, sometimes quite unexpectedly, and without anyone to look after them. It keeps in touch with them and does the kind of work which the hon. Lady has recommended should be extended. The work which that small society does is a proof to me that much more could be done, but funds and voluntary workers are required.
In Perth, there is a further interest in this matter which is evidenced by the fact that the war memorial for the last war is a home for old people. Some of them live in the mansion house, acquired within the bounds of the city, for those who have no wives or husbands living, and others live in small hutted houses in the grounds where they can still live their own life as couples, but under supervision in case of necessity. This type of work is of the greatest possible social value and is a responsibility which we must not shirk. It is very easy for us to say that, but it is a fact.
Most of these old people, some in small ways and others in greater ways, have done their best for their country, and it is hard to think that at the end of their days, although they have a pension, they have no one to look after them. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that more effort will be made in this direction, because I think that these old people are well worthy of support and of help in the evening of their days. I hope that the Minister will give us some encouragement that this matter will be dealt with in a rather different way from that in which it has been dealt with up to now.

4.15 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I am very glad to follow so closely my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who dealt with the question of old people. I must, however, dissociate myself from her remarks when she said that the Church might do more, and when, in particular, she left out the most influential pressure group of all, namely, the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners' Associations. As a member of a Church of Scotland, I agree with most of what she said. At the same time,


I certainly think that this powerful group, which can exercise so much pressure on Members of Parliament, could go a long way to fulfil some of the desires expressed by my hon. Friend today. I know that it meets every week.

Miss Herbison: When I mentioned churches, guilds, and so on, I was dealing only with the voluntary type of work of providing people to visit old people. I know, of course, that the Federation does wonderful work in that field.

Mrs. Mann: I was just coming to that if my hon. Friend had allowed me to proceed. I started my sentence by saying that I knew that the Federation met every week. It cannot possibly meet every week to discuss how much the Government are to give them. It cannot be having reports every week. Surely, once in a while, it knows whether it is to get anything, and usually it knows that it will not get anything, and then it has a meeting about what it can get from the corporation. Would it not be a good thing if the Federation devoted one of its meetings every month to finding out the position of its own colleagues?

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. That precisely is what the branches of the Federation do, not only once a month but every week.

Mrs. Mann: I am very glad to have my assertion so powerfully reinforced, and to know that this great body is doing this work. Therefore, I imagine that it is unnecessary to ask the churches and other people who are much more remotely concerned than the Federation. I am glad to know, as my hon. Friend said, that the old-age pensioners are running messages, are taking each other across places where there is dangerous traffic, and are watching that their own old pals are not suffering from loneliness. We are glad to have that assurance from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), who has been so long and so honourably associated with the Federation.
My hon. Friend referred to something else which we all deplore, and that is old people suffering from arterio-sclerosis, commonly known as senility, being put into mental hospitals. It is really worse

than my hon. Friend stated. She said that these people are taken in as mental patients. They are, in fact, certified as imbeciles or lunatics under the Lunacy Acts.
It is almost three years since I tried to get the Government to help me to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule. I was not lucky in the Ballot, but I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would have helped me to get the Bill through the House. I am sorry to say that I was put off with some statement about the Russell Report. When I inquired into that Report, I found that it had very little to do with this aspect of old age.
I want now to refer to a matter which, although it is the greatest single cause of death in Great Britain, is never raised in the House of Commons, and less is done about it than about any other cause of death. I refer to accidents in the home. No notice is taken of the matter and little money is spent on it. Never in any debate in the House of Commons have we turned our attention to it. We have talked about the need for research into cancer and coronary thrombosis, but we have never talked about research into accidents in the home or propaganda to make people conscious of this ever-present danger.
I understand that we spend about £129 million a year on the prevention of accidents on the roads. Yet all we spend annually on the prevention of accidents in the home is £3,000, which is given to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, of which I am a vice-president. The withdrawal of even that amount was threatened two or three years ago, and I had to raise the matter in the House.
I recently asked a Question about the number of deaths in Scotland resulting from accidents in the home and accidents on the roads in 1953–54. I was told by the Secretary of State that 1,134 deaths from accidents in the home occurred in 1953 and 1,106 in 1954, while deaths from road accidents numbered 600 in 1953 and 561 in 1954. That means that almost twice as many fatal accidents occurred in the home as on the roads.
If we turn to the figures for England and Wales, we find something which ought to make every Scottish man and woman think. In 1953, there were 5,895 deaths resulting from accidents in the


home and 4,493 deaths from road accidents. While the number of deaths from road accidents is still much below the number from accidents in the home, the proportion of deaths from accidents in the home in Scotland is very much greater. It is clear from reports on this subject that Scotland suffers very much more severely than other parts of the British Isles from overcrowding, and it is largely from this that the accidents in the home arise.
Another aspect is lengthy treatment in hospital. My hon. Friend spoke of the necessity for providing hospital beds. I wonder whether it can be estimated how many beds are occupied by victims of accidents which could have been prevented. I also wonder whether an estimate can be made of how much money is spent as a result of accidents in the home. An inter-Departmental committee, appointed by the Labour Government, estimated the cost of treatment following accidents in the home to be £4 million or £5 million a year, and that figure does not take into account accident victims treated by general practitioners.
What is being done about that? In Scotland, very little. My hon. Friend mentioned that Edinburgh has a fireguard scheme. Edinburgh has a very enthusiastic medical officer of health, Dr. Seiler, who has often presented papers to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and he has a very enthusiastic home accidents committee set up under the aegis of the local authority. I am told that the money available to that committee for road and home accident work—I think most of it is devoted to the roads—is £75 per annum. It is a ridiculous amount. I find that there are about 540 home safety committees working under local authorities in England. There are only two in Scotland.
I find it very difficult to believe that my persuasive oratory should be sending to sleep so many hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland, whom I wish most to impress. I assure the House that a very small hat will fit me in future. There seems to be a very soporific atmosphere. However, I see an hon. Gentleman stirring. While there is life there is hope.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: We thought hon. Gentlemen opposite were dead.

Mrs. Mann: We ought to be a little more serious, particularly when I am dealing with a subject such as this.
In England, 450 committees have been set up; in Scotland two. The two were in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and last year one was set up in Kilmarnock—and I am very glad to say I was in at the start of that—and I believe that this month one was started in Aberdeen. Apart from that, the Secretary of State appears to be leaving it to voluntary bodies and to a great many small, sporadic attempts here and there for propaganda, but nothing is actually being done.
I was in Belfast in connection with this subject and found a great campaign going on there. From the hospital endowment fund £1,00 had been taken and a most intensive campaign was going ahead. There were lectures, window displays, B.B.C. broadcasts, leaflets, and postal publicity. I have an envelope which came to me from Belfast and across it is written, "Protect your child." The authorities went further than that. They had uniformed firemen at the schools and the firemen delivered leaflets. The education authority co-operated and prizes were offered to the children for the best essays on the leaflets.
Belfast had been worried about the amount of time, nursing and hospital services spent in treating accidents which were preventable. When I was there I saw a young girl whose breast was completely burned away and who had had 52 weeks' treatment in hospital and who had received 31 pints of blood. She is now on her feet. The accident happened because she was wearing a nightdress and because there was a mirror upon the mantlepiece. I know that if the fire had been properly guarded that nightdress might not have caught fire; but I also know from our statistics that there are 12 million open fires in Britain and 5 million appliances, electrical and gas, which are not protected, in spite of the Heating Appliances (Fireguards) Act, 1952, because the Act applies only to new appliances coming on to the market. The Act refers to an offence only after a disaster has actually taken place. That seems to be like bolting the stable door after a horse has gone.
Meantime, something can be done. Mirrors should not be above the fireplace. One surgeon with whom I am very intimately acquainted, and who works in the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Glasgow, constantly tells me to let mothers know that they ought to put girls in pyjamas, because all the accidents of that kind are with girls in nightdresses. Indeed, the report of the inter-Departmental committee says that 38 per cent. of the deaths from burning are due to the wearing of nightdresses.
In the English inter-Departmental report—I am sorry to say that there is nothing in the Scottish report—I notice that an attempt is being made to procure material which will be non-inflammable. That will be a big job, because the texture of the material must not be altered. We do not want something that will be as hard as wood in place of flannelette, or winceyette. It must not cause a skin rash. It must not wash out in the wash, as have so many former attempts. It must not appreciably increase the cost and must not leave a char which will develop into a flame.
While the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is investigating this type of material—and I have talked to surgeons in Belfast, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Kilmarnock who are all agreed—we must adopt the simple expedient of having girls wear pyjamas instead of nightdresses. How is it that it is always girls and not boys who are burned in this way? The surgeons reply that girls wear nightdresses and boys wear pyjamas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North spoke of the hospital attention required by old people. If the figures of the causes of death from home accidents are broken down, it will be found that they are mainly to children under five and old people over 65, and usually in the 65-year-old group it is from falls rather than from burns.
I was very interested to get a very long letter from the Secretary of State about accidents in the home. In fact, I think that it is the longest letter he has written.

Mr. E. G. Willis: That is why we never see him here.

Mrs. Mann: In that letter the right hon. Gentleman drew my attention to a

leaflet prepared by the Department. I have already said that I am a vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which has 68 leaflets in circulation. I consider that this leaflet from the Department is the best I have yet seen. It is most expressive and I am sorry that it is regarded as being too expensive to deliver on a wide scale. Indeed, it is suggested that it should be used more as a poster.
I know of nothing that would bring home to young children in the schools a consciousness of accidents more than would this leaflet. In all the investigations which have been undertaken it has been discovered that accidents take place around tea-time, when mother is in the kitchen, when the children are home from school, when father is home for his tea; when pots are pulled over, the table cover is pulled and a child is scalded, or someone brushes against the fire. If we could make schoolchildren of eight to twelve years of age really accident-conscious, we should have so many more little policemen in the kitchen to see that nothing happens to the toddlers of eighteen months of age and to those under five.
The Secretary of State could do a great deal if he would invoke the aid of the education authorities, if they brought the firemen to the schools wearing their uniforms, which would make the children talk when they returned home, if they would issue leaflets, and offer prizes in the schools for the best essays. If he invoked the aid of the hospital boards, I think we could get a lot of money out of the endowments. Belfast got £1,000, and I think it would be possible to get some money from the hospital endowments and allow our young surgeons, and even the elderly ones, to go to the schools or to public meetings and deliver lectures on what is happening in the hospitals.
If the local authorities received more encouragement and had permission to engage lecturers among the consultants, the plastic surgeons and those dealing with accidents, who are so deeply and seriously concerned about the day-to-day tragedies which they see, they could do a lot of good. Perhaps one has to have an accident in one's own home to realise this situation, and I myself am enthusiastic about it because I personally drank the dregs of that cup myself. It may be that if the surgeons who see it all,


instead of making a domiciliary visit, made a visit to deliver a lecture, we could rouse the consciousness of the people and save the tragedy and despair—and the cost to the Exchequer—of something that could and should be prevented, and, at the same time, provide more money, more hospital staff and more beds for this necessary work.

4.42 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) has done a service to Scotland today by making the speech to which we have just listened. As I knew before, the fact that there are roughly double the number of fatal accidents in the home to the number of fatal accidents on the roads has never been brought into public view adequately before, and I hope that the speech which the hon. Lady has made will have the necessary effect on the Government, on the local authorities and on public opinion outside. I would assure her that, as far as her oratory is concerned, I did not go to sleep, at any rate, but that I was very interested in what she said.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) spent most of her time speaking about the old people, and I do not necessarily disagree with most of what she said. I agree particularly with the general theme of her remarks to the effect that, as far as possible, the old people should spend the evening of their lives in their own homes. I think that it is far better that if that can be done it should be done; for those who cannot do this, of course, there are obligations under Acts of Parliament on local authorities to set up old people's homes.
The only cloud I would cast on her enthusiasm and energy is this. First, I think there is still and ought to be some obligation on the other members of the family, if there are other members of the family, to look after their old people, and, secondly, I think that we must remember that the old people of today have the old-fashioned, but I think right, Victorian pride in being able to be independent, and very many of them are not anxious to take advantage of the facilities that are provided today.
As an example, in a town not far from where I live, a meals service was

organised. It is a town of over 2,000 people, but the old people's committee could find only 15 old people of that area to take advantage of the service offered, which goes to show that, apart from monetary considerations, there is this sense of pride among the old people. They do not want to be considered the object of charity, but would much rather live in their independence, the virtue of which has been brought down to them from their Victorian forefathers. I do not think that we ought to overdo these provisions, but ought to help the old people to maintain that pride in their independence.
None the less, one of the most important social services—and I agree with the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North—is the provision that is made to combat the loneliness of old people. I do not believe that the Government can really do very much about this. It is much more a matter of local voluntary social service and for the local old people's committees, people with a friendly touch, who can sit down for a chat over a cup of tea with the old people in their own homes. They can take them out for an outing, as we do in our part of the country, and organise a motor car service to take them to local beauty spots, or encourage them to watch a bowling match on a nice summer evening by giving them a ticket to admit them to the bowling green.
That is the sort of thing which can be done by other members of the community to enable the old people to forget their loneliness, and I believe that it is that sort of thing which is most important in helping our old people today. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) said, it is not a question of money, but much more a question of the psychological approach in dealing with old people today.
I have been reading the Reports for 1954, and I should like to draw attention to one or two matters in them. First, I think that the statistics, and particularly those given in page 106, are so dramatic that they are worth a little attention. Let us look at the figures of maternal mortality. The number of women who died in childbirth between 1936 and 1940, on the average, was 424 per annum, whereas the number of women who died in childbirth last year was only 70. That is a


very dramatic reduction, and, of that figure of 70, 10 per cent. were due to abortions and 15 were due to puerperal sepsis.
Both of these could be avoided, and it seems to me that, even though these figures are so dramatically good, there are still opportunities for making childbirth a much safer thing than it has ever been thought to be in pre-war days. There were over 92,000 births, and only 70 mothers died. I am sure that, with better attention even than we have today, we can get that figure down still further.
Let us take the figure of infant deaths. Between 1936 and 1940, the average figure of deaths under one month was 3,241. In 1954, there were only 1,904. Taking the figures of deaths under one year, between 1936 and 1940 the yearly average was 6,600, whereas, last year, there was only 2,861, a reduction of 50 per cent. in a few years. And so it goes on.
I am not claiming that the Government are responsible. I believe it to be due to the advancement of medical science, to the discovery of new drugs and the many things discovered, invented and developed by medical science and nursing throughout the years.

Mr. Hubbard: And to better housing.

Captain Duncan: Yes, and to better housing—

Mr. Hubbard: And clinics.

Captain Duncan: Yes, but they were also in evidence in 1939. The results are dramatic enough for attention to be called to them, and the same thing applies to the figures for tuberculosis, which are also extremely good.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend a few questions about the mental services. I do not regard mental illness as a stigma. I think it a mistake to talk in that way, as did the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie I was present at the opening of Gowrie House by Lord Strathclyde, a couple of months ago. This open door mental institution has been extended from 70 to 100 beds. No door in the whole place is locked. All the patients are voluntary patients and can walk out at any time. There is a throughput of patients of over 100 per cent. a year. That may be a

specialist institution, because an enormous number of special cases are treated there which are peculiarly susceptible—

Mr. Cyril Bence: What does that mean?

Captain Duncan: Patients who stay for a year in the hospital.

Mr. Bence: Over 100 per cent? I do not understand how it can be more than 100 per cent.

Captain Duncan: It may be more. The average stay of a patient is less than a year. All the patients leave.
That does not apply to other mental hospitals. This is a specialist institution where special types of patients are treated and receive special treatment. But even in the ordinary mental institutions the throughput, that is to say the cure of patients, is much quicker than is generally realised. Broadly speaking, the type of patients whose numbers accumulate from year to year are people who are so old, whose mental faculties have broken down, that they have to be kept in an institution. That is a difficult problem for mental institutions.
I was glad to hear recently from the Government, and it is contained in these Reports, that plans are ready to improve the mental hospitals in Scotland, particularly at Westgreen, which is a mental institution in my part of the country. It is important that improvements should be made there as at present it is in a bad state.
May I say a word about the much more difficult problem of mental deficiency? I am glad that at last two new blocks have been erected at Baldovan Institution. One of the old buildings was a most appalling place which I am glad has been closed. In page 56 of the Reports it states that plans are being made for two new blocks for high-grade mental defectives. I wish to know when they are to be started, because when they are provided we shall be able to meet the problem in our area for some time to come.
In the Scottish Grand Committee this morning I raised the question of slaughterhouses—

Mr. Oswald: It ought to be splashed all over the Chamber.

Captain Duncan: Page 77 of the Reports states:
It has been shown incidentally, that the removal of control has, to some extent, altered the pattern of the meat trade; in particular more animals are being killed in the beef-producing areas instead of being sent live to English markets.
Statistics are being collected by the Department to show the trend of slaughter. I should like to see those figures, and I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether he will make them available, not only to this House, but to local authorities; because in the future siting policy of slaughterhouses it is essential to meet the needs of each district.
I think it is becoming more apparent, as time goes on, that the trend will be to increase slaughtering in the producing areas and reduce it in the consuming areas. It will be much more economical, and better for the animals, to send meat on the hook in the railway van or lorry than to send the animals for miles on the hoof in vans. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will provide us with these figures and give them to the local authorities when the future policy for slaughterhouses is under consideration.
In page 99 of the Reports reference is made to rural water supplies. There is a lot of information about rural water supplies, but it is difficult to get a clear picture of what is happening. I gather—though I should like my hon. Friend to confirm this—that there are 300 rural schemes for water and 224 sewerage schemes which have been completed since the war. I am excluding the big town schemes. There are 64 water schemes and 42 sewerage schemes proceeding now and, so far as I can understand the Reports, there are, in addition, 418 water schemes and 163 sewerage schemes authorised.
This adds up to a formidable total, if I have interpreted the figures rightly. I wish to be assured that the authorised figure means that local authorities are getting on with the work. If 418 water schemes are put into operation during this year, it will mean a big extension in the rural areas, particularly in districts where water is so badly needed if we are to keep the people in the countryside. A piped water supply is one of the amenities which people living in the countryside have come to expect.
I wish to know how many of these schemes are in operation, how much money has been authorised by the Government in grants and how much money local authorities are expected to spend this year. When main trunk pipes are being laid I hope that the by-pipes to neighbouring farms and villages will be laid at the same time, and that it will not be necessary to come back the following year to open up the trench again in order to install them.
In page 114 of the Reports there are statistics of the beds available in the regional hospital board areas. I notice that in the Eastern Regional Hospital Board area there is a reduction from 836 beds in 1953 to 577 in 1954. I should like an explanation of this figure. I do not cavil at a reduction in the number of beds because, thanks to the notable reduction in the incidence of tuberculosis, we are able to cater for all diagnosed cases of tuberculosis in our area straight away; in fact, we have spare beds which, I suggest, might well be used by people from other areas if there is any overcrowding in those areas. There has been a remarkable reduction in the disease, but I should like an explanation of how the reduction in the number of beds has come about. I should like to know whether the beds have been transferred to other purposes.
I congratulate the Government upon the Reports. They are reports of progress—better health and better conditions for old and young alike. Although the housing figures are not a record they are the second highest ever for Scotland. I hope that this progress will continue during this year and that we shall be able to congratulate the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office next year upon as good Reports as those now before us. If we can do so, I believe that Scotland will be getting her share and her due.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: This debate has ranged over a very wide area. I have been interested in many of the speeches which have been made and would dearly like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who spoke about the care of the aged, which is a subject very close to my heart. I am afraid, however, that upon this occasion


I must leave that subject and take up the subject of the cheerful and much better Report of the Department of Health for Scotland, which was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). Taken generally, it is true that this is a cheerful and much better Report. Nevertheless, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a matter which is to be found in page 29, and which is dealt with in what is probably the shortest paragraph in the Report.
This paragraph deals with the biggest killer disease in Scotland, namely, coronary thrombosis. This paragraph makes it clear that the incidence of deaths from coronary thrombosis has gone up by leaps and bounds. It has increased five times in the last twenty years. Although this is the biggest killer disease in Scotland it receives the briefest mention of all the multitude of items appearing in the Report. The incidence of deaths from this disease have increased by five times, but we are glad to know that the increase in other heart diseases is not going on to the same extent. The number of deaths from rheumatic heart disease, indeed, is very low. This emphasises the very serious nature of coronary thrombosis.
The paragraph says:
… there is clear evidence that the coronary group is showing a heavy increase. It is not known for certain why this should be, although various different reasons have been adduced from time to time.
I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary will agree that if there is anything which we should concentrate upon in connection with a report of this kind—which, as the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus rightly claimed, shows an improvement in every other direction—it is the question of the incidence of death from the disease and the incidence of the disease itself.
There is quite an improvement in the research into this disease. I thanked the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Department in the debates which took place last year and the year before for having made possible greater research into the causes and treatment of the disease, but I am satisfied that that research has not gone far enough. Recently, some progress has been made by the discovery of an anti-coagulant, which has the effect of slowing up the

coagulation of the blood. This has been found to be helpful, but it is not generally given unless the patient concerned has had recurrent attacks of thrombosis. I hope that encouragement will be given in this matter and that the Medical Research Council will go into the possibilities of further development of the use of this anti-coagulant in the treatment of thrombosis.
The tragedy is that the great bulk of the people making up this high and ever-increasing figure of deaths from the disease never knew that they had it, because most of them were killed in the first attack. It is, therefore, of great importance to find out the causes of the disease. I make a very special plea to the Joint Under-Secretary and to the Secretary of State, which I hope will be taken note of, because of the importance of this issue. A scheme has been started in Kilmarnock under which the local authority has agreed to make coronary thrombosis a notifiable disease. That scheme has already been accepted by the Fife County Council, but in this instance it does not include the large burghs of Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy.
The purpose of making this disease notifiable is to make possible the collection of facts which are bound to be useful to the Medical Research Council in its efforts to ascertain the cause of the ever-increasing incidence of the disease. I do not know very much about the Kilmarnock scheme, but I know that a questionnaire is issued in connection with it. I know something of the Fife County Council's scheme, and I compliment the medical office of health for the county, and also the medical officer of health for Kilmarnock, for their enterprise in introducing such schemes, which are of great value to research into the causes of this killer disease. The incidence of the disease in England and Wales is about the same as it is in Scotland, which proves conclusively that this killer disease is getting worse and worse.
Under the Fife County Council scheme all the general practitioners in the area are asked to complete a questionnaire giving full particulars of the victim of an attack of coronary thrombosis. If the unfortunate person has died with the first attack, not a great deal of help is available, but if the victim survives that


first attack the general practitioner completes the form and passes it on to the medical officers of health for Kilmarnock and Fife County Council. They, in turn, contact the sufferer and obtain from him the answers to a whole number of questions. They ask what his background is; where he works; what type of food he has; whether he has had any other kind of disease; whether he has suffered from diabetes, and whether he is overweight or underweight.
It is rather remarkable that, according to the figures which I have been able to obtain, 80 per cent. of the people dying from the disease belong not to the classes which do hard physical work but to those who suffer from mental strain. That, in itself, should tell us something. It would be interesting to find out whether there is any history of coronary thrombosis or angina in the parents of the victims. These experiments could be very useful.
I cannot anticipate the results, but the collection of information relative to the ever-growing number of victims suffering from the disease is bound to be of great value to the Medical Research Council in its endeavour to arrive at the cause of the disease. Only when we find out possible causes can we take preventive measures to reduce the incidence of disease.
To reduce the incidence of death from this disease and the ever-increasing number of people who become victims to it, would the Department of Health for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Scotland encourage local authorities to try a period of voluntary notification of those suffering from coronary thrombosis and angina?

Captain Duncan: The hon. Gentleman started by saying that in Fife and Kilmarnock notification was compulsory. Which is it?

Mr. Hubbard: I must apologise to the House. If I said that, I said it wrongly. It is a voluntary scheme, both in Kilmarnock and in Fife.
The value of the voluntary scheme will not be fully felt until we have wider information. The Fife scheme might be made to include the large burghs of Kirkcaldy and Dunfermline. We miss out that large group of people, but we should include them in order that the

scheme may be a success. The information from the wider scheme could be of value to us. The medical officers of health and the general practitioners of Kirkcaldy and Dunfermline should be brought into the scheme, to co-operate and collect information to be passed on to the Medical Research Council and others who are doing research in cardiology and matters of that description.

Mr. William Ross: Would my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State what is going on in this direction? I gather from the medical officer of health for Kilmarnock that there is a lot going on in other places as well as in Kilmarnock.

Mr. Hubbard: I hope that is true. I can only speak of the experiments which I know are being carried on. I am glad to know that Kilmarnock's was the original scheme. It has been an original place for many things.

Mr. Ross: And it is still going strong.

Mr. Hubbard: To get the full value of this type of research, could the Secretary of State ask Scottish local authorities to agree to voluntary notification of coronary thrombosis for a period, say, of two years? I am aware that the Secretary of State has no power of compulsion, but I am satisfied that if local authorities knew that they had the blessing of the Secretary of State they would co-operate and help to collect information.
I am not speaking as one with great knowledge of the subject but as one who, with quite a bit of personal experience, would like to know more about it. Most sufferers would like to know more about this matter. I understand there are particular ages when this disease becomes more evident, especially in women, and that there are kinds of occupations where the disease is more common than in other occupations. I believe that one of the causes of the disease is too much fat in the blood. It would be interesting to know the type of food that such people should eat, so that we can advise parents and people generally what to avoid in order to minimise the danger of contracting this rather horrible disease at a later stage in life.
I am sure that every local authority and every general medical practitioner in Scotland would give such schemes their


blessing and co-operation. It may be said that medical officers of health of different local authorities are busy, but I doubt whether they have too much to do. They used to carry out a great deal more work for local authorities in the past than they do now. The introduction of the National Health Service removed a lot of their responsibility. I know they are a kind body of men who would be anxious to help, and they could provide us with the real information we need.
It is interesting and disturbing to realise the increasing incidence of death from this disease. We do not know the number of people who suffer from it and there is no way of knowing. This fact is out of keeping with our times. We have to notify an attack of measles, which is a comparatively mild ailment—it is contagious, I admit—yet it is nobody's business to collect information about the number of people suffering from coronary thrombosis. We know, of course, the number of deaths but not the number of sufferers. We hope that every encouragement will be given to the Medical Research Council in dealing with this complaint. I am sure it will be delighted to have the co-operation and encouragement of the Secretary of State and of local authorities.
I understand that for the first time there is to be a world conference on this disease. I am glad there is to be an interchange of research information on thrombosis, and also on poliomyelitis. This subject is common to all political parties. It has to be common to be common there. We are getting co-operation in research on poliomyelitis. The world conference on coronary thrombosis will be of great value. It has been made possible as the result of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health in England making greater sums of money available for research and interchange of information. I hope that something will come of it.
I hope we shall get further information about the use of anti-coagulants, and that a message of hope to those who suffer from recurrent attacks of thrombosis will go out, as well as to those who deplore the ever increasing mortality figures. I trust that the Under-Secretary of State will agree, as a result of this debate, to ask local authorities for their cooperation.

5.20 p.m.

Sir Ian Clark Hutchison: As I understand that it is desired to conclude this debate at seven o'clock I intervene for only a few minutes to raise two points, one of which I do not think has yet been mentioned. When the Scottish Standing Committee discussed the Scottish Health Services last year I commented on one paragraph in the 1953 Report which dealt with German measles. I asked the then Joint Under-Secretary—now the Minister of State—whether he had any information about research into that particular disease. I always understood it to be of a rather minor character, but it may apparently have very serious effects on expectant mothers. The then Joint Under-Secretary was not able to say very much in reply.
In the 1954 Report I find no reference to German measles. This is an important subject because, as everyone knows, it is infectious and very common, and particularly liable to spread in a family where there are a number of young children and where, therefore, there may be a risk to the mother. I have heard interest in this matter very properly expressed in a number of quarters, and I should be grateful if the Joint Under-Secretary could say a word about research into the effects of this disease.
My other point is the highly important subject of the campaign against tuberculosis. Everyone must feel satisfaction in knowing that the death rate from that disease has dropped considerably in the last few years, and that the campaign for mass radiography is showing good results. Page 23 of the Report shows the areas in which the campaign has been carried out, but I wonder whether the Joint Under-Secretary could say what other areas are to be surveyed during the current year.
I am particularly concerned with the district of Pilton, in my own constituency. Greenock had, I believe, the first survey, and I think that Pilton was second. Some disappointment has been expressed by the organising committee at the lack of sufficient apparatus to enable follow-up procedure to be made in the ward itself. On 14th June last I asked some Questions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I appreciate that it is necessary to deploy such resources of mass radiography units


as are available to the best possible advantage, but I would urge the Secretary of State to try to get more of these invaluable units.
If a proper follow-up procedure could be arranged in those areas where the original survey has been made, it would be a great encouragement. I agree that lack of equipment will probably make it impossible to do that at very short intervals, but I would hope that it could be done within a year or two of the original survey, because it is important that people should be encouraged to use these facilities. It would help the battle against tuberculosis if there was this further check on the people who may be affected. Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will comment on the two points I have mentioned.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I should like to reinforce the plea made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) for follow-up procedure. Two districts have now been covered. I also asked Questions about this of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and from his answers he seemed to think that we wanted a follow-up in connection with people who had already been dealt with.
The Committee at Pilton wishes to have another campaign to cover those not previously examined. That requires a mass X-ray unit. I notice, too, that the Edinburgh Town Council is expressing concern at the seeming shortage of equipment in Scotland for these campaigns. The Secretary of State ought really to regard this more seriously, and when the committees themselves are anxious voluntarily to undertake the work of persuading the people to be X-rayed, he should give that encouragement which can only be given by providing equipment.
I want to return to the original theme of this debate—the care of the aged sick. During the past few months it has become clearer that the size of the problem has been underestimated; that the statistics have been too low. This was brought out very clearly in the survey carried out in Edinburgh, which I mentioned during the debate on the Gracious Speech. That survey showed that of over 5,000 who were examined, 40 per cent. were found to have various needs. Following that survey the "Scotsman," in a leading

article, pointed out that the size of the problem was much larger than had been thought possible. It said:
The findings of the survey indicate that the suspicions are well founded; that the degree of silent suffering among the elderly is considerably greater than is conveyed by official statistics.
It went on to indicate that that was also true even of those requiring hospital treatment. The article continued:
But the survey confirms that the number in need of institutional care is greater than is evident from the waiting lists.
The survey revealed that 40 per cent. of the old-age pensioners had some need. If we apply that to the whole of Scotland, where we have just over half a million old-age pensioners, we find that 200,000 have some need—either nursing need, hospital need, a need for therapy, a need for rehabilitation, or something of that kind. That represents an immense pool of human need in our midst, which I do not think it really being met. Certainly, the information provided in the Department's Report for the last year does not seem to indicate that the problem is receiving the urgent attention that it deserves.
There is, first of all, the actual problem of hospital accommodation. The Report for last year says,
The problem of making adequate provision for the large numbers of old people who need hospital treatment remains one of the most serious facing the Regional Boards;
I do not suppose the Secretary of State will reply to the debate, but he has looked into the Chamber for a few minutes and, as we see him occasionally, I should like—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): The hon. Member is not being fair in view of the fact that I sat through the early part of the debate and have now returned to the Chamber.

Mr. Willis: I had not noticed the right hon. Gentleman more recently, and I am bound to say that I have not seen a great deal of him during recent Scottish debates.
Arising out of the question of hospital treatment, can the Government give a clearer picture of how the increased expenditure which they have authorised is to be spent? What part of the £300,000 announced some time ago is to be spent on extending hospital accommodation for the aged and what part on extending


accommodation for the mentally deficient, which is another pressing problem in Scotland? Every Report I have seen about mental hospitals indicates that there is gross overcrowding which nobody can prevent and a grave shortage of accommodation. What is being done about that?
The paragraph concludes by saying,
To some extent the present shortage of beds reflects the difficulty in finding suitable accommodation elsewhere for patients well enough to be discharged.
This raises the question of other accommodation, which comes under the local authorities. Here again we find the same shortage of accommodation. From the figures in the Report I gather that we have accommodation for about 10,000 under the local authorities, the Church of Scotland, the Old People's Welfare Association, the Aged Christian Friends' Society and various other organisations. That seems to be far short of the accommodation which we need.
The annual report of the Edinburgh Corporation published this year said that a large amount of additional accommodation was required. What progress is being made? From the Report of the Department of Health, I gather that local authorities increased the accommodation available last year by about 300, which seems a very small increase in view of the size of the problem. In view of the great need for this accommodation, I should have thought that more ought to have been done.
When we consider the facts provided by the Edinburgh survey carried out a few months ago, we get some idea of the problem. That Survey revealed that 22 of the bedridden patients were living alone and 90 were living with spouse only. Of those whose movements were restricted, 112 were living alone and 213 with spouse only. Figures were given for those whose out-of-door movements were restricted, and it was shown that out of 990 people living alone, 537, or 10 per cent. of all those taking part in the survey, were either completely bedridden or were restricted in their movements. That indicates a need for a great deal more to be done than is being done at present.
We also require those services which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) mentioned

in her excellent opening speech. When we try to go into the problem we find difficulty in finding out the facts because the services seem to be in the hands of so many different organisations—regional hospital boards, local executives, local authorities and half-a-dozen or more charitable organisations. They are all doing a good job, but it seems obvious that we ought to have a little more coordination between them than we have at the moment, first of all to get the facts and, secondly, to use the facts for finding the remedy.
According to the Report for 1954,
Local Advisory Committees, representing Boards of Management, local authorities and Executive Councils, are now functioning
The Report says these
have played an important part in securing better co-ordination of services for the aged.
I do not know whether these are the same committees as were referred to by Sir Humphrey Broun Lindsay, chairman of the South-East Regional Hospital Board, in April. If they are, he had a very different story to tell. Referring to the 25 local co-ordinating committees which had been set up in Scotland, Sir Humphrey said that five of them had met more than five times, seven more than once, and five once. Eight had not met at all. Among the subjects discussed, eight committees had considered the chronic sick. Thus only eight out of these 25 co-ordinating committees have considered what is obviously a very great question. This speech of 1st April this year belies the self-satisfied sentence in the Report of the Department of Health that
these Committees have played an important part in securing better co-ordination of services for the aged
That is a different story altogether.
What has the Joint Under-Secretary of State to say about this? Is what Sir Humphrey Broun Lindsay said true? If it is true, then obviously the Government are not treating the matter as urgently as it ought to be treated nor are they treating it with the importance which it deserves. We ought to have some explanation from the Government about this.
The more we look at this problem and the more we assess some of the facts concerning it, the more it stands out plainly that this is one of the most important


problems not only of today but of the future because of the increasing numbers of aged people. I trust that the Government's reply tonight will be better than the information contained about this matter in the Annual Report.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: I feel sure my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the House will forgive me if I do not deal specifically with the single problem of the aged sick but return to a general review of the annual Reports, not that I disagree with anything that has been said on the problem and its magnitude and the great work we still have to do before we can feel satisfied that we see the end of that problem.
I think it due to the Department of Health, to the Scottish National Health Services Council and to the people of Scotland to have a few more words from the back benches on the Reports now before us. The Report of the Department of Health opens with the words:
While Scotland's health record showed no outstanding features in 1954, there was evidence of progress in many fields.
As a subdued under-statement that would take a lot of beating. It is a remarkable Report, indeed every annual Report on our health services in Scotland since 1946 has been a remarkable and dramatic document. The record of steady progress made in that decade is surely many times greater than in any previous decade in history.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) suggested one or two reasons for that. He suggested that probably the main reason was the development of medical science, advances in medical knowledge and curative science, possibly the discovery of penicillin, the discovery and use of sulpha drugs—we hear a lot about sulpha-conscious doctors—and the growth of mass radiography. These and other advances in medical science are no doubt part of the cause.
In my view an equally important and effective contributory cause of our increased national health lies in other social reasons. It lies partly in improved housing, although we have still a long way to go there, but I think more particularly in the continued incidence of full employment and the fact that full

employment brings so many attendant blessings—regular good meals for the family and, most important of all, freedom of parents from worries and anxieties.
Although there are no figures to prove this, I am convinced that the chief reason, apart from medical scientific improvements, for the really spectacular drop in our maternal mortality rate, which at one time was such a great disgrace to us as a nation, is that mothers have been free from worry and anxiety to a greater extent since the end of the war than ever before.
I think we should look at one or two specific subjects in the Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) mentioned perhaps the most serious and worrying section in the Report—the growth of thrombosis as a killer disease. This makes us very uneasy. As my hon. Friend said, this disease is not peculiar to Scotland; it is common to Britain and to all countries which—perhaps rather quaintly—call themselves civilised. It is a disease of civilisation; a result of the increasing tempo of our times.
It is as well to turn to consideration of one or two diseases which used to be killer diseases, diphtheria, for instance. What a remarkable record we have had in that disease. It is no longer a killer disease. We can now claim to have killed the menace of diphtheria. The Report points out that for six years no immunised child in Scotland has died from diphtheria —not a single one. Yet, in one year—13 years ago—514 non-immunised children and three immunised children died from that disease. That is a remarkable change and something for which the Department and we who have had something to do with popularising immunisation may well be proud.
I wish to say a word or two about mass radiography, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned. The Report points out that, in round figures, 188,000 people in Scotland were examined in six months last year. That is a very large number, although, as the two hon. Members pointed out, scope for expansion is still wide. It could be extended almost universally if we had more equipment readily available in different areas.
I noticed one significant fact about the figures in the mass radiography table. Unit No. 3 in Glasgow reported that the number of active cases discovered was about 10 times more than the average for any other unit in use in Scotland. It is a most amazing and remarkable fact that one single unit got more than 3 per cent. whilst every other unit had under 1 per cent. of cases and 0·5 per cent. was the general percentage. I should like to know which districts in Glasgow are covered by unit No. 3. My guess is that they include densely populated areas comprising most of the slum property. If so, that is unmistakable proof that bad housing conditions are the cause of respiratory tuberculosis.
Looking at the figures for T.B., we find very good reasons for encouragement. The average of the incidence of the disease in the years 1919 to 1923 was 38 deaths per 100,000 of our Scottish population. The average last year was two deaths per 100,000 of our population. That shows that T.B. is no longer a killer disease. We are almost able to claim that we have conquered the menace of T.B.
I mention these things because I want to make a comment upon them. A complete cure for T.B. is now almost the norm, and in so many cases it is now a certainty. That is so to such an extent that one wonders why so many employers of labour have not recognised the fact. How many hon. Members have shared my experience of having constituents who have been cured of this disease come to them and tell them that they find difficulty in finding employment because employers see on their record that they were once treated for tuberculosis?
A person who has suffered from tuberculosis and has been given a clean bill of health by the medical authorities is just as healthy as one who has suffered from a bad cold in the head, or from gout, or any normal disease which medical science is now curing. It is a sorry thing, particularly for female labour, after a patient has so joyously returned to general employment to find that the record remains as if it were something to be ashamed of and that she ought not to be allowed to mix with other members of a community.
I am a little disquieted about the scantiness of information in the Report on the school dental services. All the Report tells us is that the number of dentists now in the Service continues slightly to increase, and the graph tells us of the total number of school children treated by the School Dental Service. The number of children on the school registers in Scotland total nearly 828,000. Rather less than half—340,000—were examined during the year under review. We should aim as soon as possible to reach the stage when all our schoolchildren have their teeth examined at least once a year. The remarkable feature is that of the 340,000 who were examined, no fewer than 255,575 were found to require treatment. That represents a higher incidence of necessary treatment than in any other service provided by the public.
It is an astonishing, deplorable and sad fact that nearly half the children in our schools are found to require dental treatment. The number could be reduced if we were to bend our endeavours and energies towards increasing the number of dentists who devote their time to perhaps the less remunerative section of the Service but, certainly, the most valuable side of their profession—the examination of the teeth of the young and the prevention rather than the cure of disease.
I should like to say a word or two about the blood transfusion service. It is clear from the Report that nearly 100,000 bottles of whole blood were obtained in Scotland by the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Association. Of that number, 77,500 bottles were used. It would seem from these figures that the supply is adequate and that the number of donors is rather more than equal to the demand. But we ought not to be too complacent about this and rest upon the laurels we have already won in the steady and remarkable growth of this service.
The number of cases, of types of cases and of types of diseases and troubles, for which intravenously used whole blood is required grows steadily every year. Every month it is found that the introduction of blood into the bloodstream of patients is a cure for an increasing number of diseases. At one time it was never dreamed that stomach ulcers or ulcerations of the stomach could be helped by blood transfusions, but I understand that


transfusions are now a regular method of treating this other growing disease of civilisation.
In other fields of medical therapy there is increasing use of whole blood and of blood plasma for the cure of diseases, and this is likely to continue. And so the number of donors required continues to grow. While we pay our tribute to the efforts of the Association and to the voluntary donations of their blood by the increasing army of donors, perhaps it is not out of place as a concluding word in this debate to say to the public of Scotland at large that those who feel that they can give in this way a valuable life-saving donation from their own bloodstream perform one of the greatest services that any man can give to his fellow man or woman.
There are so many other things in this very human, interesting and graphic Report which we have been discussing, that one could speak for hours about it and about all the work now being done in Scotland. Perhaps it might be appropriate to say that there has never been in the history of our country a greater tribute or a more graphic description of the value of the public conscience and of the effectiveness of public service than is given in the Report.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: This short debate has served a very useful purpose in bringing to the notice of the Government the necessity of improving the health services in Scotland. I am certain that I echo the sentiments of Members on both sides of the House when I say that it must be apparent that the major theme today has centred on one or two particular subjects.
The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) have all touched upon this point. Therefore, this evening I intend to draw attention to the position of our aged people in Scotland.
The numbers of aged persons in the community are increasing, but their span

of life has not expanded in any way. Indeed, page 19 of the Report states:
More people are becoming old but people are not living longer.
I was rather amazed at that statement, but it appears to me to be perfectly true.
The problem of the aged and the chronic sick is one that must be tackled immediately. As far back as August, 1953, the Secretary of State for Scotland called for a survey. Strange though it may seem, he again called for a survey in August, 1954. In the one case it is almost two years ago, and in the other case almost twelve months ago. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary, who is to reply, to say when we are likely to have those reports and how long the Government will take to examine them.

Mr. Ross: They will want a survey of the reports.

Mr. Oswald: They will probably have a survey of the reports by appointed surveyors. Then, by the time that the results reach the Scottish Office, there will probably be another General Election. We on this side want an answer to that question, because the situation is very serious and requires to be tackled forthwith.
Recently, in the City of Edinburgh, some 159 doctors participated in a survey covering 5,086 elderly persons. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East has on two different occasions prior to his speech this afternoon spoken in the House on this very important subject, as has also my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). It has been raised so that the Scottish Office could not complain that it had no knowledge of the subject.
I want to give great credit to the Edinburgh general practitioners for their co-operation. It is indeed a momentous achievement, for we must appreciate that the task which was undertaken by the doctors in Edinburgh was in addition to the every-day job of work that doctors are called upon to perform. Valuable information has been compiled from their efforts, and the evidence produced has brought to light the conditions which exist among many old people whose plight has never been fully appreciated.
A very significant feature of this important survey was that out of Edinburgh's total of 261 doctors the survey covers the reports of only 167. Because


of incomplete data 387 patients' cards were excluded from the analysis and, owing to late returns, 379 cards were not included. The latter number was the quota of eight doctors. However alarming the findings may appear to be, it is obvious that they completely under-rate the real dimensions of the problem and serve only to emphasise the urgency of its necessary solution.
Records kept by the doctors reveal that in the course of one month 40 per cent. of these people were found to have some kind of need. It was recorded that out of the total of 5,086 patients, 1,270 required some form of medical attention and that need was not being met. It was further revealed that 1,274 required home or domestic assistance and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East has already pointed out, 10 per cent. of them required physiotherapy but are still left in need. Had they been given some form of physiotherapy it might easily have eased the pain and the difficulty which they now have to suffer.
Out of the 1,274 whom I have already mentioned as requiring home or domestic assistance, 936 needed help with their domestic affairs, and 730 needed help with with domestic affairs or with their personal hygiene. It was found that 411 of them lived alone and another 336 lived with their spouse only. It is important to note that half of them either lived alone or only with their spouse, and nearly half of that number were women. Quite a number were bedridden or completely confined to their homes. Surely this factor strengthens the urgency of the claim for home or domestic assistance.
An examination of the analysis of the 1,270 patients who had some medical need showed that 301 of them were living alone. Seventeen of that group were completely bedridden and 72 restricted in their movements both indoors and outdoors. Of another group of 320 who lived with their spouse only, 44 were bedridden and 112 were restricted in their movements. It must be clear to all of us in the House that the nursing and hospital needs of this large group, who are either completely immobile or handicapped and restricted in movement, demand immediate attention. Six per cent., or 304 persons, of the total sample taken over the month required nursing care.
I hope that I have the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, because this is of paramount importance. I hope that he will not carry on a conversation with his Parliabentary Private Secretary, because I want a reply to these points before the debate is over. Those who already enjoy nursing care are not included in the tables. I underline the word "not." It may be that if all the doctors in Edinburgh had been able to furnish a complete picture for one year instead of for only one month a number larger than 304 would have come to light. The present position is serious enough, but the thought of the many others not yet accounted for is equally important. We are quite unable to measure their needs, because the information is not available.
Another important point is that it was found that 20 persons needed nursing equipment although they did not necessarily require nursing assistance. Twenty-one of the 304 required nursing care and nursing equipment. There is no reason at all why 41 aged and infirm people cannot be supplied immediately with this very necessary nursing equipment. The moment is past for making excuses. The doctors' opinions are that the articles are needed, and the task of the Government is to cause those articles to be supplied now.
It should be strongly emphasised that the 658 cases requiring institutional care is very much a minimum estimate. There are 152 on the waiting lists and 35 of them are living alone. Five of them are bedridden, 12 of them are restricted even in indoor movement. Forty of them were living with their spouse only, 11 of them bedridden and 13 restricted indoors. Of the remaining number living in households, 25 were bedridden.
The Edinburgh survey discloses that of the 658 patients who were not on the waiting list 217 were living alone, 12 of them bedridden and 51 restricted indoors. Another 159 were living with their spouse only, 27 of them bedridden and 52 restricted indoors. Among the remaining cases living in households, 72 were bedridden. Institutional care is urgently required to bring relief to those who are at this very moment laid aside by sickness. It rests with the Secretary of State for Scotland to make this matter a priority in the Department of Health for


Scotland and, furthermore, to confront his colleagues in the Cabinet with this appalling situation in Edinburgh alone.

Mr. Ross: And in the rest of Scotland.

Mr. Oswald: If the Secretary of State took cognisance of what is happening in Edinburgh, as revealed by one month's survey, and multiplied it over and over again, he would be in duty bound to take into account the situation in the rest of Scotland. There is a continuing demand for home helps, for home nursing and for all other assistance to all those who are most in need.
All this was brought out by the general practitioners in the Edinburgh area, and the importance of hospital accommodation for the old people cannot be stressed too strongly. This aspect is borne out by the Report itself, because in page 52 under the sub-heading "The aged sick" there is underlined the fact that the problem of adequate provision for the large numbers requiring hospital treatment is one of the most serious confronting the regional hospital boards.
But the Report is in no way making a very substantial record of any major steps to tackle the subject as it should be tackled. It is merely a Report. The number of additional beds in hospitals is totally inadequate for this urgent and pressing problem and it should be tackled with vigour and determination really worthy of the Scottish Office and the people of Scotland.
Over the past year the Department of Health for Scotland fixed an arbitrary figure of £460,000 to cover the needs of the hospitals within the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board. The original requirements by that group of hospitals arising from the respective management boards for their estimated costs for continuing and new schemes was £1,062,268. The Scottish Office asked them to pedal along on £460,000. If that is the pattern of restriction of capital funds, then the suffering of the aged sick requiring hospital treatment will be unnecessarily prolonged.
I find that in page 67 of the Report, under the title "Welfare Services," mention is made of the slow progress in securing residential accommodation for old people and others. It goes on, quite glibly, to say:

The use of the adapted mansion house is of receding importance. With greater freedom to build the authorities can look and plan ahead with a stricter regard to basic requirements, one of which is a substantial amount of sleeping accommodation on ground floors.
The local authorities are unable to make substantial progress through lack of funds.
During recent weeks it has been my privilege to visit several homes and institutions in my constituency and Edinburgh generally. I have seen what can be done to improve the surroundings of people residing in those homes and institutions. A great deal more can be achieved by increasing Exchequer contributions and thereby assisting local authorities all over the country to make progress with the ideas already agreed upon for improvement. Those ideas and plans are delayed, because of lack of finance. If the Government claim that we are living in a prosperous era—and all Government spokesmen keep on repeating that parrotwise—then the moment is with them to begin spending money in relieving the misery of the aged and the chronic sick in Scotland.
The Exchequer contributions are quite inadequate. According to page 70 of the Report, I note that payment by Exchequer grant for 51 homes in Scotland is the "colossal" sum of £10,642. I wonder whether anyone has taken the trouble to divide 10,642 by 51. The total equals the price of five cheap bungalows at £2,128 8s. each. Yet there are 5,780 old people in residential accommodation and 128 people in temporary quarters, a total of 5,908, so that Exchequer contributions fall well below £2 per head per year.

Mr. Ross: That is generosity.

Mr. Oswald: That is the prosperity that the Government are talking about. That is setting the people free.

Mr. Ross: And yesterday it was £7 a week rise for the dentists.

Mr. Oswald: A much larger sum is required to enable local authorities to overtake their requirements and help to ease this appalling situation. It is agreed, as the Report so rightly says, that the major consideration is to find


means of prolonging the active productive life of the aged. The Report says that what is required is
… for the sick and infirm a hospital and welfare service based on the principles derived from the modern studies in gerontology.
This factor of hospital accommodation requires a more dynamic approach than that at present being followed by the Government if we are to achieve the sentiments so aptly expressed in the Report.
When we consider the Edinburgh report as only a partial survey, it is rather alarming to think of the vast numbers that must be similarly placed in the City of Glasgow, in the industrial areas of Dundee, Aberdeen, Kirkcaldy, and many other Scottish towns. We have not got surveys from them, yet the appalling figures I have quoted are from a partial survey of only 61 per cent. of the general practitioners in the City of Edinburgh and for only one month in the year.
The magnitude of this question is one that must be given speedy examination if we are to save the older generation from pain and unnecessary suffering. Arising from our knowledge, plans should be prepared without delay; indeed, there is no reason for any further delay. It is obvious that the steps already taken have not secured any substantial improvement in the health services for the aged, but have touched only the fringe of the problem of the aged people of Scotland.
I suggest that immediate action must be taken to secure more hospital accommodation and the recruitment of a sufficient number of suitably trained staff. We require closer co-ordination between the general practitioner, the local authority and the hospital. More than ever we need improvements in local authority services whether in an institution or in the patient's own home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in an admirable opening speech, brought out the importance of the care of the aged in her references to the speech delivered only yesterday to the Edinburgh Council of Social Service by Mr. H. R. Smith, the Secretary of the Department of Health for Scotland. Mr. Smith emphasised that public interest must be

quickened if we are to alleviate the difficulties confronting an ageing population. Those who are in a position to know strongly underline that the present scale of services for the old people is quite inadequate.
This is not a debate into which partisan politics have entered. The range of the subject has been in the interest of the general public, and it has pinpointed the need for a revision of the present outlook in so far as the health services in Scotland are concerned. Several hon. Members have not only shown an interest, but have shown their anxiety about the necessity of more having to be done by the Government of the day.
The opportunity is now afforded, and the Government should be cognisant of the necessity to act quickly. Our old people must be given the opportunity to come back into the life of the community, and this can be done if the false economies which are threatening the adequacy and efficiency of the National Health Service in Scotland are abolished forthwith. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that we must not look upon men and women at 65 years of age merely as industrial discards. Surely the nation must regard the older people with respect for all the efforts that they have made in the past to make Scotland a great nation.
It seems strange to me that we have a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but conveniently overlook the cruelty suffered by the older generation. It is not a crime to grow old. Our people should be enabled to retire in dignity and in comfort. That is no more than they deserve and it must be apparent that their welfare should be of the very best that our nation can afford. The country can and must afford better facilities for the chronic sick. This can be accomplished if we have the will to do it. Everyone looks forward to peace of mind and contentment on retirement from their normal activities. So this House has a duty to perform to make that thought a practical piece of social justice for each one who is unable to look after himself or herself through ill-health or infirmity.
I plead with the Government to take immediate action to ease the burden of each one at present having to suffer because of years and lack of facilities. They do not ask for any sympathy. All


they ask for is attention to their needs, which should be theirs by right. The tremendous sacrifices that our aged folk have made are worthy of consideration by a thankful populace. It is not too much to ask that in the evening of their days they should be given ample reward for their long and active industrial contribution by way of decent pensions and subsistence in honourable retirement.
We on this side of the Chamber believe in human beings. We believe in loving and caring for those who pioneered before us—hon. Gentlemen opposite should not laugh. If they do not know what humanity means, we do—

Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to write letters next door and this well-read speech is making so much noise that we can hardly hear ourselves think. Could the hon. Gentleman make a little less noise?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is the last person who should complain of an hon. Member speaking up.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is it not important to be considered well-bred as well as well-read, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: These matters are extraneous to the Question before the House. I find myself in no discomfort in listening to the speech of the hon. Member who is addressing the House.

Mr. Oswald: Thank you, Sir, I am deeply grateful to you. I wanted to point out that some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that this is a laughing matter. We on this side of the House take it extremely seriously. As a consequence I may be emphasising it in a loud voice, but if so, it is only because I sincerely believe that something must be done on behalf of the aged and the chronic sick in Scotland. It is sheer impertinence on the part of an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who has not been here during the course of the debate, to enter the Chamber and make an interjection and complaint of such a character.
I repeat that we believe in loving and caring for those who have pioneered before us. We shall not relax our efforts

on this side of the House continually to press the Government to bring about relief for our aged and chronic sick, and we ask the Government to take immediate steps, starting from the moment the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland rises to speak on their behalf.

6.27 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) spoke of the figures set out in the Reports as dramatic, and in this debate we have talked in the perspective of dramatic improvements and, quite rightly, of applying our minds to the problems that lie ahead.
In attempting the difficult task of replying to this debate, which has roamed over so wide a field in so short a time, I would, first, like to thank hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House for the moderate and helpful way in which they have put their points. There is little disagreement between us about the desirability of nearly all the proposals that have been put forward for expanding and developing the health services, and especially the hospital service. However, since no more than a fair share of the resources of the nation can be devoted to this purpose, the crux of the matter, in practice, lies in selecting from the wide range of projects which we would all like to undertake those advances that are most urgent.
First, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked about the new hospital building programme. The new feature recently introduced into the building programme, as announced by my predecessor in this House on 9th February last, is that additional sums proposed by the Government should cover the cost of major hospital building schemes in the next three years. Schemes for this purpose have been selected by my right hon. Friend from among those put forward by the regional hospital boards and will be financed centrally by the Department. Since the original announcement there have been detailed consultations with the regional boards and hon. Members may wish to have this rather full account of the projects now in view.
The total provision for hospital building is to be increased from its present level of £1,900,000 to £2,200,000 in 1956–57 and to £2,500,000 in 1957–58. A small part of the additional funds to be made available will be used to supplement the special programme of plant renewal on which we have now been engaged for some time and on which £800,000 is expected to be spent in the three years 1955–56, 1956–57 and 1957–58. The balance is to be used to increase the number of major building schemes undertaken.
I will deal, first, with the schemes already begun. Under existing programmes there are two major schemes, involving between them an estimated total cost of £640,000. They are both in Edinburgh and both at the Western General Hospital. The first of them is the radiotherapy institute of 100 beds for the treatment of and the research into malignant diseases. The main part of that work is now practically complete. The second project is a new unit of 60 beds for neuro-surgery.
The schemes for 1955–56, that is, the current year's programme, include a start on three major projects. The first is the reconstruction of the Westgreen Mental Hospital, in Dundee, due to start in September, at an estimated cost of £250,000. The second, due to start in August, is the erection of a surgical unit of 120 beds at the Victoria Hospital, in Kirkcaldy, at an estimated cost of £450,000. The third is the provision of a new maternity hospital at Bellshill, Lanarkshire, involving an expenditure of about £500,000. The first phase in the Bellshill Maternity Hospital undertaking is the provision of a new nurses' home, the building of which will begin next month.
Now for the schemes for 1956–57. As the House is aware, and as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus reminded us, one of the major problems with which the hospital boards are at present contending is the shortage of accommodation for mental defectives needing institutional care. With this in mind, it has been decided that a substantial part of the additional capital moneys to be provided will be applied on extensions at mental deficiency institutions.
Three major development schemes, providing between them for about 850 additional beds, together with ancillary facilities, are programmed to start next year. These are at Ladysbridge, near Banff; Baldovan Institution, near Dundee; and the Royal Scottish National Institution at Larbert. The three extension schemes together are estimated to cost about £1,200,000, and the work will take some four or five years to complete. We have already started some of the preparatory work at Ladysbridge, including work on the new boiler house there.
Let us look to the future—the third year, 1957–58. Planning work is already in hand on the three major schemes due to start in 1957–58. The first of these is a radiotherapy and research unit at the Glasgow Western Infirmary. This unit will have the latest facilities for the handling of radioactive isotopes and will be complementary to the unit now being built in Edinburgh where radiation of other types will be employed. A firm estimate of the cost is not yet available.
Secondly, in Edinburgh a large-scale reconstruction of the Royal Mental Hospital is to be begun at an estimated cost of £450,000. In addition to general improvements and the installation of a new heating system, the scheme will provide new admission and treatment units and 160 beds. Thirdly, in Lerwick we shall see a start on the replacement of the Gilbert Bain Hospital by new buildings at a cost estimated at £250,000. The schemes which I have mentioned are the major works that we intend to start in the period up to 1957–58.

Mr. Hubbard: Has the promise to build the new general hospital in the County of Fife now been abandoned? That was agreed to two years ago, and I have not heard any mention of it since then. I am wondering whether it has been withdrawn.

Mr. Browne: I was coming to that later. The point is that there are so many schemes that the order of priority cannot please everyone. I do not think it would be right to say that any scheme is abandoned. It is a question of dealing only with the three years under review, and this scheme is not in the three years that I have been taking.

Mr. Hubbard: Two years ago the hon. Gentleman's Department approved the building of a new general hospital of 250 beds in the County of Fife, in view of the tremendous need for them in the area, especially as there are 17 patients waiting for every bed when it becomes empty. There has been no improvement, but many more people have been going into Fife, and many more are likely to go there. Will the Minister have another look at the promise given two years ago?

Mr. Woodburn: This was one of the major schemes to relieve the pressure on the Royal Infirmary at Edinburgh and to prevent the flow of nearly all Fife's serious patients into the Royal Infirmary. The idea was to create a general hospital in Fife which would gradually build up its own prestige and be able to deal with the people north of the Forth.

Mr. Browne: I am well aware of the difficulty and the disappointment which must be felt when there is only a certain amount of money to go round, and someone has to take second place or be put behind in the queue.

Mr. Hubbard: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the building of the new general hospital has been put back? Why has it been removed from the list? Can he give any explanation for it? It is not sufficient to talk about priorities when the decision has been already taken and the plans have been prepared.

Mr. Browne: The regional hospital boards and the Secretary of State together have to decide priorities, and I hope that this demand for priorities will go on for a very long time, because there is so much to be done.

Miss Herbison: My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) has asked why this particular hospital has not been included in the priority list. It is not good enough for the Joint Under-Secretary of State to say that the Secretary of State and the regional hospital boards make these decisions. My hon. Friend has a right to know what were the considerations which made the Secretary of State and the regional hospital boards put out of the priority list something which was already in it.

Mr. Browne: I am sure that the House will acquit me of discourtesy when I say

that, without notice, it would be very difficult for me to give a detailed reply. I will, of course, write to the hon. Gentleman.
The schemes I have mentioned involve a capital expenditure of just under £4 million. There is also £800,000 to be spent on the work in the hospitals which will make a considerable saving in revenue expenditure on heating systems and things like that. In addition to these two items of expenditure, one must remember that the regional hospital boards will be carrying out their own projects—that is, capital projects of under £250,000—at a rate involving an expenditure of about £1,300,000 a year. I think we can be satisfied that a start has been made, but do not let us ever say that it is an entirely satisfactory start or that we cannot do any better.
The question of tuberculosis was raised by a number of hon. Members and I should like to turn now to that subject, because none of the major projects which I have mentioned relate to the problem of tuberculosis, and in view of the importance which many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), have attached to this subject in their speeches, its omission may be surprising.
Without underestimating the size of the remaining task, I am happy to report considerable progress in this field. The death rate from respiratory tuberculosis in 1954 was 20 per 100,000 population compared with 23 in the previous year and, do not let us forget, 66 per 100,000 as recently as in 1948.
The first quarter of 1955 shows further progress. Although the figure is always relatively high in that particular quarter, at 22 this year, it is more than one-fifth below the rate of 28 in the first quarter of 1954. Even so, although the hon. Member for West Lothian was rightly optimistic, there were still over 7,000 notifications in 1954, and the final victory over this disease is still some way off.
Progress in the provision of effective treatment has also been striking. Thanks to advances in medical care made possible by the newer drugs, the average period of stay in hospital has been considerably reduced. Furthermore, given good home conditions, more patients can be cared for without ever entering hospital. In some areas this has been encouraged by


administrative rearrangements linking the facilities for out-patient supervision and care more closely with the hospital facilities for in-patient treatment. The object of the arrangements is to ensure that if a patient under treatment at home proves at some stage to be in need of in-patient care he can obtain it without delay and while remaining under the ultimate clinical charge of the same specialist.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North asked how and why patients returned home, who permitted them to be there, and whether there was any danger in their being at home. The answer is that the decision on the suitability of patients for domiciliary treatment is entirely a matter for the tuberculosis physician, who has been given no instructions to keep the lists down in that way. We are satisfied on that very important point, and I think the hon. Lady can be satisfied, too.
With regard to waiting lists, as a consequence of all this—this answers my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus—the number of beds equipped and stalled for the treatment of respiratory tuberculosis is much less inadequate to our needs than it has been for many years. For the whole of Scotland the total number of patients awaiting admission is now fewer than 500. This may seem a considerable number, but when it is compared with the figure of more than 9,000 admissions in 1954 it falls into proper perspective.
In many areas of the country today there is, indeed, no significant waiting period at all for persons in urgent need of admission to hospital. In other areas there are still small waiting lists of such patients, and this is usually because the patients prefer to wait three or four weeks and then be admitted to hospital near their homes than to be admitted without delay to a hospital at some distance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to mass-radiography. The position is that the series of intensive local drives directed to the general public is continuing, in addition to the more routine activities of the mass-radiography units in screening factory and office workers and other special groups. Some of the drives have been particularly

successful in gaining public participation, especially that in central Leith last March, when the number of persons examined represented an average of more than 2,000 per unit per week and 37 hitherto unknown cases of tuberculosis were brought to light.
We are now fully persuaded that these drives to bring the public to have themselves photographed are well worth while, and in settling the future scheme of work—it has to be fixed many months ahead; one has to get staff, voluntary support and the necessary publicity, or else a scheme is a failure—we intend to increase the emphasis on this side of mass-radiography activities in future years.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked for some particulars about the programme. The 1955 programme has to date covered central Leith, Dumbarton. Dundee, and a part of Glasgow, and to come are a part of Fife—Cowdenbeath and Wemyss—Motherwell and Wishaw.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East also asked about repeat surveys. We still do not think that repeat surveys after one or two years would be profitable compared with breaking new ground. We cannot do both without taking staff from other work. I assure hon. Gentlemen that there is a very severe staffing difficulty. It is the staff and not the equipment which creates the difficulty about going over too wide a field in too short a time.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked about the percentage of cases found by Unit 3 in Glasgow. The unit is used for symptom groups and contacts from all parts of Glasgow, not for unselected groups as other units are. Hence the high figure of cases found, which does not reflect bad conditions in any particular district.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) spoke about some of the things which could be done for old people. We are very grateful for his suggestions. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North referred to the tragic plight of old men and women, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) directed his speech to the attention which is rightly given to


the care of the aged. It must be recognised that there are still deficiencies to be made good in the services provided for old people. Although various authorities have already done much to improve them, hon. Gentlemen and, indeed, the whole nation realise that much yet remains to be done.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and other hon. Members referred to the accommodation problem. Year by year regional boards have been able to devote more beds to the care of the aged. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North also referred to this matter. Some indication of recent progress in providing hospital accommodation is given in pages 52 and 53 of the Report of the Department of Health for 1954. In some areas the provision of long-stay beds is probably already almost adequate; we believe that in most areas the main need is for more beds for assessment and active treatment, where the patient's disabilities can be rapidly assessed on admission with the aims of rehabilitating him so that he may as far as possible return to an active life. Good results are already being obtained by assessment and treatment units, notably at Maryfield Hospital, Dundee. and at Stobhill, in Glasgow.
There have recently been appreciable increases in the hospital medical staffs engaged in the care of the aged; and it is hoped that the opening of a training school for assistant nurses at Foresthall Hospital, Glasgow, will help to ease the difficulty of finding nursing staff to undertake the work of caring for aged patients.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North said that old people are generally happier in their own homes. With that in view, we are anxious that the local authority services which can help them to live at home should continue to develop. In this matter the home nursing service is very important, and the number of patients attended and visits paid by home nurses have been increasing year by year. In 1954, the number of visits was 2,915,000, and about 161,000 patients, of whom it is estimated that about half were aged or chronic sick, received attention.
Health visitors, too, are being called on more and more to give advice to elderly people and their families on the prevention of disability. All but two of the fifty-five local health authorities are pro-

viding a service of domestic help which can be of great value in the care of the elderly at home. I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North asked for the names of the authorities not providing such a service, for they should be given. They are Angus and Dumfries County Councils.
I was asked whether we were satisfied about the adequacy of the service provided. It would be too difficult to give details in this debate, but the valuable suggestions which have been made, especially by the hon. Lady, will be most carefully noted. The hon. Lady also spoke about the "meals on wheels" service and similar problems, and asked whether local authorities could give some financial assistance towards chiropody services. The problem which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North raised was one of co-ordination between the local authorities and the voluntary bodies. She was so right when she said that there was such a wide field for voluntary help. I heard her discuss—not argue, nor even cross swords—with the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) whether it should be the task of the old-age pensioners' associations or the church organisations, but surely every one of us should do what we can to help the old people.

Miss Herbison: I must get this point clear. Giving help through services like the chiropody service I emphatically believe to be the job of the local authority, the regional hospital board, and so on. There is a very wide field for voluntary workers, but not in these matters which ought to be provided as part of the Health Service, through whatever body is the right one.

Mr. Browne: On the question of chiropody in general, I agree with the direction of the hon. Lady's thoughts. At present we are doing rather better in Scotland than is being done in England in providing chiropody for old people and in some areas local voluntary bodies are used. That that is a desirable permanent feature I should not like to say, but we are feeling our way and working in the right direction and I am seized of the hon. Lady's point.
The hon. Lady and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus spoke of the loneliness of old people and


also their pride. In helping them in their loneliness we have to bear their pride in mind, and the desire of some of them to stand on their own feet and keep their sturdy independence. Any hon. Member who has suggested to them that they should go to the National Assistance Board, and who has seen them start to cry because that is the first time they have heard that suggestion, realises exactly what I mean.
I want to talk not only about coordination between local authorities and voluntary institutions, as is so necessary, but of another vitally important matter. It is the arrangements for co-ordination between the various bodies responsible for the care of the aged. In the light of comprehensive reports recently received, it may be said that in some areas these arrangements are already working well. To take one example, in the Dundee area there is a local advisory committee on the welfare of the aged, representing Dundee Town Council, the executive council, the local medical committee and the boards of management concerned. By arrangement with all these bodies, the senior geriatric physician in the area has been able to establish excellent informal arrangements among the hospitals, the city health department and the general practitioners in the area. In some other areas there appears to be room for improvement in effective and immediate co-operation and the problem must receive continued attention, both centrally and locally, until it is satisfactorily solved.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North asked other questions which I should like to answer. One was about payment to chemists. The rates of payment to chemists are under review in the light of comprehensive information about expenses that has been collected from chemists. We do not take the view that the 1951 arbitration award rules for all time. While, for some items, it may be true that Scottish chemists get more than English chemists, I doubt whether their overall profit is any higher. The cost of drugs per head in Scotland is actually a shade less than in England.
The hon. Lady for Coatbridge and Airdrie, in a most valuable speech, which, I hope, will receive the greatest publicity, drew attention to accidents in the home. Only ten days ago the Chief Medical

Officer of the Department of Health held a successful Press conference, which brought the subject into prominence. Research into home accidents is a difficult problem and we hope that the local authorities and the medical officers of health will take an increasing interest in the whole matter. The hon. Lady had with her, as I have, an excellent pamphlet which points out that for every seven children killed on the roads, ten die from accidents in their homes. That is the first statement that the mothers see.
The pamphlet has been sent to county clerks, town clerks, the W.V.S., the medical officers of health and the Scottish Council for Health Education, and talks on the subject have begun. I think that the hon. Lady was right to ask whether the pamphlet was too expensive and whether there was any more we could do. I will give her a promise to look at that and to treat it as seriously as she treated it. If any more can be done, we will try to do it.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus asked for some statistics about slaughtering. The Scottish figures are included in the United Kingdom figures, which are published in the Monthly Digest of Statistics issued by the Central Statistical Office. The separate Scottish figures appear half-yearly in the Digest of Scottish Statistics. He asked me another question, about which I will write to him, as it would take too long to answer here.
I was also asked about coronary thrombosis. An increase in the number of deaths from heart disease is to be expected from changes in the age structure of the population, but that is certainly not a complete explanation of recent trends; and in coronary thrombosis especially there remains a great part of the increase which cannot be accounted for in this way, nor through greater precision in certifying causes of death. The notification of coronary thrombosis and the collection of information generally was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), who referred to voluntary arrangements in Kilmarnock and Fife. We are doubtful whether there is any great value in duplicating this all over the country at present, but we agree that authorities might experiment with modifications or


variations and the Secretary of State will consider this matter with the authorities in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
In conclusion, there is one general point I should like to make. It is, of course, a bad thing for political parties to set about outbidding one another in promising a bigger, better, or freer Health Service, but the House has an inescapable responsibility for a Service that costs, in Scotland, over £60 million of public money a year. Many of us forget that the stamps we pay meet less than 10 per cent. of the cost and that the balance is met by the taxpayer. It is, I am sure, the concern of all hon. and right hon. Members that the best possible value in terms of health should be obtained for this expenditure.
So far as this depends on questions of organisation, or administration, we expect shortly to have the advice of the Guillebaud Committee. Whatever it may have to say on these matters, however, and whatever our political views, we cannot hope to succeed without the co-operation of the public, as users of the Service, in the avoidance of abuse.
This, then, is the message I should like to go out from today's debate. The Health Service is a most important and valuable feature of our national life and we ought to take every care of it. Let us all, everyone, treat it as such. The family doctor is our skilled adviser and friend. He will prescribe medicines if we need them. It is not for us to demand this or that of him. The ambulance service is there to take people to hospital. Let none of us look on it as a mere convenience, or, by calling on it unnecessarily, risk causing delay or suffering to someone who really needs its help. By this and other means we can all do our part to safeguard the efficiency of the health services and remove from them any ground for criticism that our national resources, to however small an extent, are being squandered by any action of ours.

Miss Herbison: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, may I ask whether he could give us some information about units for the treatment of those suffering from pneumoconiosis? Is there any chance of any further units being set up?

Mr. Browne: I have an answer for the hon. Lady, who referred to the special

unit for research into and treatment of pneumoconiosis at Bangour Hospital, which continues to serve as a specialist centre for both in-patients and outpatients. Although this is the only unit set aside for the purpose, the full range of facilities in general hospitals and in the chest clinics is available for patients suffering from this disease. Medical advice favours provision for pneumoconiosis within the general chest diseases service, as well as in specialised units.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REMPLOY FACTORIES

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I beg to move,
That this House views with concern the increasing number of disabled persons who are unable to secure training and employment at Remploy factories; and calls upon the Government to remove the present restrictions and to provide facilities for extending the activities of Remploy in such a way as to absorb large numbers of disabled persons.
This is the first time I have had the honour and the responsibility of moving a Motion on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, and I hope it will not be the last, although perhaps I had better put it as a hope rather than an expectation. I almost feel on this occasion that I ought to ask the House for the customary indulgence which it extends to maiden speakers, though I cannot promise, because that would be out of character, that I shall follow a maiden speaker's practice of being non-controversial. Even if I am to be controversial, I shall also try in opening this debate to be constructive.
The Minister of Labour, when replying to a Question last Thursday, said that he wants to do his best for Remploy, and, if he really means that— and I will say something more about that in a moment or two—he will find ungrudging support on this side of the House. We, in the Labour Party have always believed that it is the responsibility of the community to do everything possible to prevent the handicapped man from being thrown on the scrapheap of idleness and dependence. There are many cripples and other


handicapped men who cannot keep up with fit men in the hurly-burly and fast tempo of modern practice, and the idea of making it possible for them, nevertheless, to maintain themselves and their families by doing a job of work has always been one of the most cherished aims of our movement. Few of us will forget the hard work and passionate advocacy devoted to this cause particularly by our old and dearly-loved friend, the late George Tomlinson.
Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House that Remploy, which was originally called the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation, was formed in April, 1945. The Labour Government in that year and in subsequent years allocated to it rapidly increasing amounts of financial assistance in order to enable it to develop quickly. The original plan provided for the establishment of 130 factories employing about 13,000 severely disabled persons. In fact, only 92 factories have been established, and two of these have since been closed down, so that there are now 90.
Since the present Government came into power, there has been constant pressure to save money on Remploy. The Government grant has been cut by about £400,000 a year compared with what it was during the last years of the Labour Government, and, allowing for the fall in the value of money which has taken place in the lifetime of the present Government, that leaves a cut in real terms of well over 20 per cent. The consequence is that Remploy has now had to stop altogether the intake of disabled workers. All over the country there is a great demand by large numbers of these men for employment in Remploy factories, but the doors of these factories are now slammed in their faces. Of all the mean acts and heartless cheeseparing of the present Government, this is the meanest and the most heartless of all.
I would be ashamed if I were the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be a member of a Government which denies to a cripple, an epileptic or a spastic the chance to make himself as other men and to hold up his head with other men, but I know that the criminal I am accusing is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman who sits by the Dispatch Box. It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But if the Minister of Labour really wants us

to believe that he is seeking to do the best for Remploy, he ought to be much tougher than he has been in fighting the pettifogging meanness of his right hon. Friend. He virtually admitted to us last week that doing that is a pretty tough job, but he ought to do it all the same.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was brought into this Government for pretty well the same reason that Brutus was brought into Cassius's conspiracy—in order to lend an air of respectability to what might otherwise have seemed a ramshackle and shabby crew. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was brought into this Government because it was thought of him, as Casca said of Brutus, that—
He sits high in all the people's hearts:
And that which would appear offence in us,
His countenance, like richest alchemy,
Will change to virtue and to worthiness.
Now, the right hon and learned Gentleman, again like Brutus, has made—
the most unkindest cut of all.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give the House some figures about this cut. The level of activity of Remploy when the present Government took over was measured by an annual subvention of the order of £2¾ million. The grant for the year 1950–51 was £2,669,000. In the next year, 1951–52, it went up to £2,782,000. Then came the Tory Government, and, in their first year—1952–53—the subvention was cut from £2,782,000 to £2,217,000. In the next year—1953–54—it was much about the same figure, but last year—1954–55—Remploy exceeded its estimates, and, therefore, against the Government's will, had spent something approaching what it had spent under the Labour Government—actually, £2,680,000.
At this stage, the Government and the right hon. and learned Gentleman started to get tough with Remploy and forced an estimated reduction in the current year's expenditure to £2,387,000—a reduction of about £300,000 in a single year. In addition to this cut, the estimate for interest-free loans for capital expenditure has been cut from last year to this year by much more than half.
In the face of these figures, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to speak later, to tell us


how he managed to say, as he did say on the 17th February—
There is no question of reducing the amount spent on Remploy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 547.]
It seems to me that there is no question of that; it has just been done, and there is no question of it at all.
What a miserable performance this is for a Government that keeps telling us that they have provided a soaring prosperity for the whole community. What sort of a prosperity is it out of which we cannot afford £300,000 for the halt and the lame? Just before the Election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave away £100 million in tax reliefs, most of it to businesses and to wealthy people. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman going to tell us that the Government could not have afforded this £100 million without exacting a contribution towards it from the cripples, the cardiacs and the polio victims? Is that what he will say?
I fancy that we shall be told by the Government how much it costs to keep each man working in Remploy, and that it is dearer to keep him working than to pay him the full rates of pension and other State assistance to which he may be entitled. That is a totally false argument. Our duty towards these men is not just to give them food, clothing and shelter, but to give them self-respect. I cannot possibly put this point better than it was put by the chairman of Remploy, Ltd., in his last annual report. I would like to quote what Sir Robert Burrows said:
Consider for a moment what Remploy achieves both for the individual and for the nation. It is not difficult to imagine the life of an unemployed disabled person, existing on small allowances. Compare it with the life of a disabled Remploy employee who earns a wage which provides him with a higher standard of living and the self-respect of a man employed on productive work who feels that he is contributing to the well-being of the nation, and not drawing on the wealth created by others. The fact that he is a taxpayer and a contributor to National Insurance makes him feel that he is on equal terms with his fellow-men as a working member of the community. This discovery of personal pride not only affects his own mental and physical health but has an inevitable reaction within his own family. So far as the nation is concerned, it benefits directly from the production of each individual employed by Remploy, and indirectly from his higher morale.
It is this noble work which, under the benevolence of the present Minister, is

being ground to a full stop. I do not dispute that, as with all other expenditure out of public funds, the Minister has a duty to see that there is the utmost economy in the administration of the national expenditure, but the measures that the Minister has taken are panic measures, which never result in true economy. Let us consider in detail what these panic measures are.
They are four. First, there is this silly and indiscriminate business of imposing a total stop to new entrants. On 4th January this year, there were 6,540 disabled persons in Remploy. By 21st June that number had dropped to 6,196. Now the Minister says that he does not intend that the number shall drop below 6.000 during the current year. I find that phrase "during the current year" somewhat sinister-sounding. Does he mean that in later years he envisages still further reduction? That is a direct and straight question, and the House is entitled to a straight answer to it.
It is true, and I am sure we are all very happy about it, that the total number of disabled persons is falling, but it is not falling in proportion anything like so fast as the fall in the number of people for whom Remploy work is available. A total and indiscriminate ban on new entrants prevents Remploy taking in even the most deserving and obvious case that comes to its notice.
The second panic measure is to cut the administrative and supervisory staff. I know many of these people, because most of them are members of the same trade union as myself, and I know that they do much more than people in similar jobs in an ordinary factory. For example, a works superintendent and a works foreman at Remploy do not merely supervise. They also have the duty of designing and making special jigs to fit the work of each handicapped man so that the work can be done even with his own particular disability. Yet a large number of these indispensable people have been thrown out, while a lot of rather sleek and not so useful gentlemen in higher administrative positions, and in the sales department in particular, go on being employed and mounting up the overheads.
Thirdly, I understand that the Ministry has imposed on Remploy an upper limit of salary of £1,500 a year, and that if


the company wants to pay more than that amount it must get a special dispensation. I do not understand how the Minister can do that and still pretend that he does not interfere in the day-to-day arrangements of the company. I am sure there is room for considerable saving in administrative salaries, but this is absolutely the worst way of going about it. It was tried in aircraft factories during the war, and many and devious were the wangles that were used to get round it. At any rate, in practice it is much too heavy-handed and inflexible. It inhibits proper management and just does not work.
The fourth and last panic measure is the silliest one of all. It is a reduction in the amount available to the company for capital expenditure. Remploy is no different from many other manufacturing companies in that one of the best ways to improve its financial position is to improve its capital equipment. The Minister's false economies have compelled the company to do exactly the opposite to what any decent management would argue should be done.
I promised at the beginning of my speech to be constructive, and I therefore want to end by telling the Minister four intelligent things he might do instead of the four stupid things that he has done. The first of these is to strengthen the board of directors. I know that he has already taken steps in that direction and I particularly welcomed his announcement last year that Mr. Zealley is to become chairman of the company next year. I should be very surprised if Mr. Zealley does not come to the Ministry very shortly after he takes up his appointment and tells the Minister that he cannot do his job of running Remploy with a board of directors that contains no fewer than 10 part-time, amateur directors.
Secondly, the Minister ought to get really tough with the Ministry of Supply and the other purchasing Departments in order to get them to place contracts with Remploy. So far he and the Parliamentary Secretary have relied on rather feeble exhortation, and it has not done much good. He ought to be able lo induce his fellow-Ministers to see that Remploy does not get only those contracts which no private sub-contractor

will take on because they are unprofitable.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman kindly invited me last week to tell him about profitable contracts which Remploy could do. I cannot do that. The Minister knows quite well that it is difficult for a private person to give details about Government contracts without a breach of confidence. In any case it is his job and not mine, and I am too good a trade unionist to blackleg by doing unpaid the work that he is paid to do. He ought to do it. I invite him and the Parliamentary Secretary to go to the Ministries. I will give them a tip. Let them look at the assisted contracts of A.F.B. and see what they put out that Remploy could do. The Ministers might get a shock.
I urge the Minister to give Remploy a substantial once-and-for-all grant for capital expenditure, particularly for stocks and work in progress, in order to give them a flywheel of turnover on which they can expand. If he really wants, as I am sure he does and as we all do, the weekly cost per disabled man to come down, the best way to achieve that is to expand the organisation so as to spread the overheads over a larger figure of turnover. All the evidence goes to show that the one thing more than any other which has stopped Remploy from growing has been that it cannot finance an adequate level of stocks and work in progress.
My fourth and last suggestion is this. I wonder whether we have not by now reached the stage when we can take a wider view of the subject and not treat Remploy as a self-contained enterprise. I should like to see it working more closely with similar institutions for handicapped persons, such as the workshops attached to some hospitals and those run by some local authorities. Although I admit that it is revolutionary and probably full of complications and difficulties, another suggestion is that we should consider whether we could not expand Remploy to employ people whose only disability is that of old age. The House has often discussed the problem of the worker who reaches retiring age, who has lost some of his power with advancing years but is still capable of making a productive contribution and does not want to retire. That


type of man needs what is called sheltered employment in the same way as a disabled man, and we might conceivably use the lessons learned from Remploy to provide it for him.
I want to conclude by asking the House to forget for a moment all the details, the technicalities, complexities and statistics and to think of this as a human problem. A man may have been severely wounded in the war or may be suffering from a chronic but not totally disabling disease. He is living at home in enforced idleness on a pension. It is true that he has an income of sorts and the means to buy the necessities of life. His wife and children do not go short of food and clothing as they probably would have done a generation ago.
There the man's satisfaction ends. The rest of his life is a caricature of what a man's life ought to be. Perhaps his wife has to go to work. He sits at home and wanders round the house, desperately trying to find something to occupy his time and mind. The children get in his way and he gets cross with them and then is sorry. Then one day he gets a job in Remploy, and suddenly he realises that he is no longer a piece of human flotsam. He has to get up in the morning to go to work like any fit and normal man. His wife gives him his breakfast and sees him off to work, just as does Mrs. Smith the wife of the ordinary man next door. He goes home at the end of a day, just like Smith next door, and tells his wife what has happened during the day. Then, at the end of the week, he brings home a pay packet and can walk in with a few flowers for his wife and a few sweets for his children, paid for out of money he has earned for himself. It is a transformation—a miracle. It is that transformation, that miracle, which this Government are denying to every man applying today for a job with Remploy. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I ask the House to pass this Motion in order to affirm that the Government's behaviour in this matter is unworthy of the leaders of a decent and civilised community.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I beg formally to second the Motion.

7.25 p.m.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): I certainly cannot complain of all the observations which the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has made about me. I do not think that I ever expected to be invested with an aura of respectability quite to the extent which he has mentioned, but I should like to make it quite plain that, when I said—as I did in answer to him the other day—that I wanted to help Remploy, I meant it. I do want to help Remploy.
I quite appreciate the nature of the criticisms which he has made against my administration of my office in this respect and, if I may, I will come to deal with them. I would also agree that I used the expression about the "hard cause," which ho recollected in answer to a supplementary question. I also agree that, like most people who have a worthy cause on which to spend money, I could always do with more. As to being insufficiently tough, it may be that that is a just criticism, but I will only say this. I do not think that anyone who has sat as long as I have in the office I hold is so tenacious of that position that he would not know what to do if it was suggested that he was being put into an impossible and unfair position in this respect. I cannot say that I have been put in that position.
I agree with the hon. Member that this, of course, is primarily a human problem. We are all trying to see what we can do for men who suffer from this or that particular disability or adversity. We want to look at it as a human problem, but that cannot excuse us from looking also at the financial problems which are bound up with it. No one who is in charge of a Department can overlook that side of his work, however much he is impressed with the human character of the heart of the problem.
I agree, also, that the hon. Member wanted to look at the problem of Remploy not so much by itself as in connection with the other measures taken for dealing with the disabled. I do not think that we can look at the question in proper perspective unless we do that. In the Ministry of Labour it is one of the chief interests of the job that we are not by any means confined, in dealing with the disabled, to dealing with the problems of


Remploy. In an ordinary year we place no fewer than 120,000 under the D.R.O. services. In the industry rehabilitation units we train about 8,400 disabled persons every year, of whom three-quarters go to work outside and to training courses. Four thousand people are trained in the Government training centres and in other sheltered employment, such as the hon. Member referred to, there are about 5,000 other disabled men. A large number of them are blind persons, and another large number are in such ex-Service men's workshops as the Lord Roberts Memorial Workshops.
There is another interesting part of the work which must be remembered when considering Remploy and its work. The last figures I have are for the six months up to January this year. A thousand people who had been in what I would call the Remploy category—the Section II men, who are more suited for sheltered than for open employment—graduated, if I may use that expression, into open employment. That is one of the most encouraging features of the work. The rate for that six months is being kept up. I have figures only for the London region, but there the figures are over 250 for the months that have passed since January last.
Therefore, when looking at the problem of the 6,000 and more men who are in Remploy—or who have been in Remploy—one must first look at it in the perspective of the work done for much greater numbers of men who are disabled and who are helped, by grants and otherwise, in these establishments. The hon. Member can rightly point out that the numbers of people who are disabled and unemployed are going down. In 1948, there were no fewer than 64,000 people disabled and unemployed in the register—in Section 1—for open employment. When I took up my present post there were over 40,000. Today, the figure is 32,000. There is a happy decrease in the number of Section 1 disabled people unemployed fit for non-sheltered industry.
Let us take what is nearer to the heart of this question, because it helps us in looking at the Motion. Take Section II people, those who are registered as unemployed and need sheltered employment. The number unemployed in 1948 was over 10,000. When I took office at the end of

1951, it was over 7,000. Today, it is just over 4,000. That is a very healthy drop in the number of unemployed disabled men for whom not only Remploy but these other bodies and institutions offer their services. The drop since 1948 is one of more than half and since we came into office the drop has been from 7.000 to 4,000.

Mr. Edward Evans: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what has happened to those people?

Sir W. Monekton: Yes. A great number of them—and I have illustrated this over the last six months of last year—have found their way to non-sheltered employment. I was dealing with the figures on the register. If people are registered as wanting employment, we find them jobs if we can; and if they graduate to open employment, so much the better.
The other figure which I want to contract with the drop from 7,000 to 4,000 is that of people who are or have been employed in Remploy factories. To keep a sense of proportion we should know the order of the figures with which we are dealing. In 1949–50, the average number of workers in the Remploy factories was 3,500. That rose to 4.900 in the following year and to 5,830 in 1951–52 For the first time it reached 6,000 as an average in 1952–53, and since then it has always been between 6,000 and 6,600. Today, it is 6,150.

Mr. John Paton: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House the figures for the opening of new factories over the same period?

Sir W. Monckton: I must deal with one set of figures at a time.
The Motion refers to
the increasing number of disabled persons who are unable to secure training and employment at Remploy factories,
and it is important that I should say, first, that the number of people registered as unemployed has dropped from 7,000 to 4,000; secondly, that the figure of 6,000 which, as I said the other day, is the lowest to which the run-down is tolerated, was never reached until 1952; and, thirdly, that we are dealing only with the figure between 6,000 and 6,500.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says


we should have the relevant figures 6o that we can maintain a sense of proportion. Perhaps he can now tell the House the estimate of the additional money which would be needed to provide employment for all who would be eligible.

Sir W. Monckton: That is a very difficult question to answer. As everybody who has dealt with the problem knows, and as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises, not all the 4,000 who are unemployed on this part of the register could conceivably be employed in Remploy factories.

Mr. Bevan: I said "eligible."

Sir W. Monckton: One of the things to bear in mind is that we cannot have these factories everywhere. There are 90 of them, but a number of the 4,000 would not be near a factory. Further, a number of them would be found to be unsuitable for such employment, even though on the register. The Disabled Persons Employment Act, 1944, never contemplated that every person who is disabled should be found employment. He must be capable of holding employment. That is another difficulty in trying to make an estimate of that kind.

Mr. Bevan: This is very important In fact, it is the centre of the problem. We ought to have some idea of what sort of expenditure the Treasury must provide for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope he realises that we are trying to help him in this matter. We ought to know whether Remploy has formed any estimate or made any survey of the number of persons who could be given employment if the finance were available.

Sir W. Monckton: I do not think I can answer that. I do not know the answer to it. I acknowledge the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Reading, is as anxious as I am—and I hope they will believe that I am anxious, too—to do what I can for these people. No part of the work which I have had to do at the Ministry has given me more interest or excited my desire to help more than this. If I have failed in this, I assure hon. Members that it is not through lack of good will. I have given those figures and I am sorry that I cannot supply the right hon. Gentleman with those for which he asked.
I must now come for a moment to the position which arose when the Supplementary Estimate was necessary last year. As hon. Members know, in 1952 the Select Committee on Estimates criticised rather severely the losses being incurred in Remploy factories. A policy was introduced at the end of 1952—I knew of it and approved of it—for expanding Remploy production in quantity and trying to channel it and restrict it in range to lines in which standing orders could be obtained from Government Departments and constant orders from industry outside.
The basis of the theory was that if we expanded the sales there would be a lower loss per man and a lower percentage of overheads to sales. On that basis the expansion began, but in fact it did not work out like that at all. The sales rose substantially. Government Departments accounted for more than a third of the total of the sales. Yet the overheads, as I informed the House last week, went down only by about 5 per cent. of the total of the sales. There was no appreciable reduction in the loss per head of disabled workers. Indeed, in the year 1954–55 the loss per head went up to a higher figure than that which had excited the criticism of the Select Committee.
One is responsible not only for one's work but also for the finances of it, and the situation in the summer and autumn of 1954, financially, was difficult. The loss per disabled man employed was still £400 a year, or £8 a week. The number employed was still rising a little. That was when the Supplementary Estimate of £450,000 became necessary, and £250,000 of it was directly due to losses being incurred in the ordinary way of business. It was in the light of the critical position which had then arisen that it became necessary in my view to examine the position; and it was then that we called a halt in order to stop the losses from running away.
In a business of this sort it is necessary from time to time to stop expansion. That happened in 1949—and I am not making the smallest criticism of it; I completely understand why factory building was stopped in that year, I think wisely and necessarily, under the administration of the right hon. Member


for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs). The right hon. Gentleman said that
… in the long run it would be a false kindness to the severely disabled to jeopardise the success of the Corporation by over-hasty expansion at the present stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th July, 1949; Vol. 466, c. 176–7.]

Mr. Bevan: Closing down is not overhasty expansion.

Sir W. Monckton: In the present case, it was decided that it would be right for the time being not to replace wastage except in some cases for special factories, such as those for the tuberculous. Others have been taken on there and, in addition, there have been other cases in which men have been required. By and large, however, the wastage was not to be replaced.
There are three points which I want the House, in fairness, to bear in mind.

Mr. Victor Collins: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the question of wastage, could he deal with this point? The yearly intake to March, 1954, was 1,457 and the wastage was 1,092, leaving a net increase of only 365. With a wastage of that order, how does he hope to maintain the numbers above 6,000 if there is no substantial intake this year?

Sir W. Monckton: I was coming to that, if the hon. Member had waited a moment.
First. I wanted to say that it was basic to this policy that there should not be any discharge for redundancy of any possible kind and that did not happen. There was none of that. Secondly, some of the wastage which no doubt the hon. Member has in mind included men graduating, so to say, to outside industry. I did mean to say that I was not going to see the figure drop below 6,000. I had no intention of seeing the figure drop below 6,000 and did not mean to imply that I would be prepared to see it happen at some other time.
I hope the House will bear in mind that the figure was never 6,000 until 1952. It has been some hundreds above 6,000. It has come down to 6,000 and is not going below that figure at this time, when the number of people available for this work has gone down, in the years in which I have been in office, by 3,000 from 7,000. One has to look at

that to get the measure of the change which has been introduced.
Of course, one did not want merely to leave the matter there. I do not think it is quite right to say that the measures taken are to be described as panic measures. I have said what happened about the stopping of recruitment. As to the cut in the administrative and supervisory staff, that was an economy which the company thought it could introduce. The sales estimates for this year do not seem to have gone down as a result and none of the people discharged in that way was disabled.
As to the upper limit—the third measure of £1,500 on salaries—that is not an upper limit in the sense that it cannot be exceeded at all, but it cannot be exceeded without reference to the Ministry of Labour, which is a very substantial difference. I think there would be great difficulty in tilling some of the posts at that figure.
As to the reduction in the amount of capital expenditure, the figure mentioned is one which the company itself estimated at a stage when there were no new factories being built and we have not cut down on what the company suggested.
I do not want to detain the House unduly on this matter, but I want to say a word or two about what I am still trying to do. In order to look into the conditions which had made it necessary to call a halt, the company called for a report from two experienced gentlemen in the Ministry of Labour. One was experienced in examining workshops for blind workers and other forms of sheltered employment. In addition, the company called for a report from the Organisation and Methods Department of the Treasury. A very full report was issued at the end of last month; there are 400 or more paragraphs in it. It has already been considered by the company and the first talks between the company and the Ministry are taking place this week on it.
The problems that are thrown up in the report are very real—measures of reorganisation, financial control, changes in the board, and so forth. The principal problem, one which is inescapable and was touched on a little by the hon. Member for Reading, is one of policy. It has always to be fairly looked at and judged and there is not a simple answer to it. Probably about one-fifth of the


employees of Remploy are people of low productive capacity potential who may be said to be capable of no more than 10 per cent. of a normal man's production. One has to face that when looking at the figures.
I see all the advantages of employing them all, but it does have an effect on the figures of loss per man, which, in these cases, must be a great deal more than £400 a year. I fully appreciate the human side of this problem and how important it is to consider the satisfaction a man gets, even when of the lowest productive capacity, if he produces something. I see that and I am very anxious not to deprive anyone of a chance of producing something, but somewhere a line has to be drawn.
It cannot be said in any economic sense that in the case of some of them they are making a net contribution to production. It is an extremely difficult situation, which has to be faced by the board, the Government and everybody concerned in seeing what we can do about those with the lowest production potential. It is a matter on which different views may be entertained on all sides of the House, but I have no intention of making a suggestion that we should reduce the number by taking away that 10 per cent. I am not suggesting that; I am merely saying that it is one of the basic problems which have to be faced from time to time.

Mr. S. O. Davies: On that very important question, is the Minister satisfied with the figure he has just given the House? It has alarmed some of us who have taken an interest in Remploy in our constituencies from the beginning to hear that 20 per cent. of the persons employed are incapable of producing more than one-tenth of what the average able-bodied man is capable of producing. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that many of us who have worked with this problem from the very beginning cannot accept that statement? It cannot be correct.

Sir W. Monckton: I should be very happy to find that that figure is wrong.

Mr. Davies: It is a slander on these men.

Sir W. Monckton: I can only give the House the information. Problems thrown

up by reports and examinations of this kind suggest that the figure I gave, that a fifth are able to produce only about 10 per cent., applies in general. If that turns out to be wrong, no one will be more delighted than I.
I turn to what the hon. Member for Reading said about strengthening the board. As I announced in the House last week, I have taken what, I hope, is a wise step in getting Mr. Zealley, with his wide experience of industry and human relations in industry, to say that he will become chairman next year and vice-chairman under Sir Brunel Cohen for the time being. All who have had dealings with Sir Brunel know that he will do his best to help Mr. Zealley in that task. I have also obtained the services of Mr. George Dowty, Chairman of Dowty Equipment, which has had contracts with the company. I also anticipate other changes in the very near future.
It is very easy for Ministers and others to criticise the board, but we must remember what a great task it has undertaken, voluntarily undertaken. There are 90 factories with 6,000 workers in them. Whereas the ordinary industrial concern gets a site near its market and transport facilities and, as near as it can, the sort of employee it wants, Remploy is in very different case. It has to go where the men are, whatever industrial considerations may be at stake, and, with all the scattered units and low productivity, it has to pay to its workers about 75 per cent. of a normal, fit man's wage. That is not to say that the task is impossible, but it is to say that it is very difficult.
I hope that the new board will be given a chance. I owe a great debt to the old board and those who voluntarily came forward at a difficult time. It is one of the joys of the Ministry to find how men and women of public spirit are prepared to cone forward to give their time and effort in cases where they are satisfied that the cause is a worthy one.

Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: Before the Minister passes from that subject—we all recognise the difficulty of the board and the work it has done—could he say whether he is satisfied that orders from Government Departments have been sufficiently large to make it possible for the board to make this a reasonable enterprise?

Sir W. Monckton: The orders from the Government are a matter to which we constantly give our attention, to see whether we cannot get a longer line of orders, so as to avoid constant shifting, which is difficult where men are grouped in small units, and have to be trained in fresh operations. In spite of all our efforts, the total of Government contracts in which Remploy and other sheltered workshops might share does not appear to be increasing, although it is the view of the Remploy Board that it is getting a bigger share of a smaller total of that kind of order.
One improvement has, however, been made in the course of the last year. We now have agreement with the Supply Departments that they will give to Remploy forward indications of the expected volume of goods which they will require in specified commodities. They do not give any guarantee of contracts but it does enable Remploy, who find this arrangement very useful, to manufacture for stock and delivery as required. Obviously, short-term notice of contracts is difficult to accommodate. And so we are trying to improve the position in that respect.

Mr. Edward Evans: Can the Minister give the total of sales to Government Departments?

Sir W. Monckton: The best indication I can give now is that of total sales of about £2¾ million, over one-third is from Government contracts. The figure is about 38 to 40 per cent. Sometimes it is a little higher or a little lower, but that is the present position.
Provision for the disabled has been something upon which we have been able very often to agree when we do not agree about other things, and in the light of the figures which I have explained to the House I do not believe that there is much between us now. Hon. Members are, naturally, properly anxious that the work of Remploy should be extended as soon as it is possible to do so. That is an anxiety which I share. Anything I can do to bring that time forward, I will do.
But just as, in 1949, it was found necessary to call a halt, so there are times—and this is one of them, I think—when one ought to pause and take stock before going forward again with the work. We have paused, and I have shown the House

the order of the figures involved in the perspective of disabled work as a whole. We are taking stock, and it will not be long, I trust, before we can go forward, perhaps all the better for the inquiries which have been made, because the money may be spent to better use.

Mr. Percy Collick: On Merseyside there are 100 disabled men who are eligible for entry into the Remploy factory. In the Wallasey Remploy factory there are now ten vacancies. Is it not possible for the Minister to arrange for instructions to be given at least for those ten vacancies to be filled?

Sir W. Monckton: I will look into the individual case that the hon. Member has raised, but I should not want lightly to alter the position. It may be that that is an exception. I will have it considered and will let the hon. Member know.
If I have not covered all that I should like to have covered in answer to the hon. Member for Reading, it is out of mercy to the House, for this is a subject on which one could continue for a long time. I only want to say this in conclusion, and I hope the House will believe me. Even if hon. Members differ from me as to the way in which I have carried out my duties. I genuinely want to help Remploy.

7.53 p.m.

The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: I am sure that all students of the social history of this nation in the post-war period would readily admit that, of all the great steps forward in social progress, none has been greater than the setting into operation of the great scheme of Remploy. It may not be the greatest project in magnitude of scope, but in greatness of vision I believe that Remploy must be regarded as the greatest of all. When one contrasts the attitude taken by pre-war Governments to the handicapped, the maimed and the injured with what has happened since the war, one is enabled to see things in their true perspective.
Life deals fairly cruel blows to a small proportion of the members of any community. No war can be waged without some people paying, in personal sacrifice and injury, a very heavy price; and what is true of war is true, although of course


to a considerably lesser extent, of industry. The heavy industries have extorted a very heavy price from those engaged in them. In addition, there are those people who, through great misfortune, are handicapped from birth through some physical disability or incapacity.
We on this side of the House associate the great Remploy scheme with the names of the late Ernest Bevin and the late George Tomlinson, two great Socialist stalwarts. We are now, and always will be, very solicitous that nothing shall happen to this scheme, this great vision, which is fraught with such tremendous possibilities in the alleviation of suffering and the restoring of self-respect to so many members of the community. We certainly will be very solicitous that no cold hand of the Treasury shall in any way interfere with the possibilities of this scheme.
Since 1945, 10,000 men and women have been employed in Remploy. As the Minister stated, at varying stages during the last ten years 1,700 of those 10,000 have been able to return to jobs in open industry. All of us welcome with considerable joy the statement that this rehabilitation scheme has indeed been a rehabilitation scheme for such an appreciable percentage of the 10,000 people who have been employed in Remploy.
There are 90 factories, and a healthy variety of jobs is undertaken in them. In reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 14th July, the Minister stated that on 4th January, 1955, 6,540 disabled persons were employed in Remploy and that at 21st June the number had fallen to 6,196. I quote these words from a further reply by the Minister:
I do not intend that the number of workers should fall below 6,000 during the current year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 2091.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), in one of the most moving speeches I have heard in this House, referred to his misgivings about what he thought was a tacit innuendo in that figure of 6,000 for the current year. The Minister sought to assuage those misgivings but did not do so completely. A drop of 5·5 per cent. in six months is very appreciable.
The question that occurs to me is why should the process not be reversed? Instead of speaking in terms of not letting the number fall below 6,000, why not speak in terms of expansion? Why not say, "I would hope that by the end of the year we shall have as many as 7,000 employed in Remploy"? The Minister's assertion that the numbers of the seriously disabled in Section II have come down from 7,000 to 4,000 does not in any way materially affect my argument that this figure should not be going down to a 6,000 minimum but should be soaring towards 7,000, for there are still sufficient people on the register in Section II, people who are seriously handicapped and severely disabled, who could be profitably employed in Remploy. That is the burden of our case against the Government—their restrictive policy towards Remploy.
No one on this side of the House would deny that the Minister is genuinely concerned about this great project. That may be partly explained by his own nature and the type of man he is, and also by the fact that he is quite near to this problem. It comes under his Department. He is knowledgeable about it and has probably visited many of these Remploy factories, as has his Parliamentary Secretary. But the Treasury would regard Remploy as one item amongst many hundreds of others, and its attitude would be more objective. That is why the Treasury suffers in comparison with the Ministry of Labour in any imaginative, sympathetic outlook on the whole question of Remploy, and we rightly discern the interference of the Treasury with this great, inspired and noble project.
Surely this restrictive policy on the part of the Treasury cannot be due to the fact that the quality of the manufactured goods in Remploy is poor and unsatisfactory. I am sure that if the Minister were to examine the reports of Government inspectors he would agree, and say so in the House or in some other place, that the quality of the goods turned out in these Remploy factories is excellent. My information is that, on that ground at least, there can be no justification whatsoever for any restrictive policy. I believe that sales have increased by 14 per cent. during the last year ending March, 1954, as compared with the previous year, though I think that there is


considerable point in what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading said about the really unsatisfactory percentage of orders given by Government Departments.
The Minister said that it was roughly about one-third. I think that he mentioned 38 per cent. It sounds very good, but in view of the fact that this is essentially a Government project, surely we can expect a higher percentage than that. Surely there is no earthly reason why such huge purchasing Departments as some of the Government Departments could not do more to help this Remploy scheme. In addition, possibly a strongly-worded circular to local authorities might help. I am not satisfied that local authorities are doing what they should in connection with the factories.
As to productivity, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) I was aghast to hear the figures given by the Minister relating to poor productivity on the part of some sections of Remploy. I know that Sir Robert Burrows used these words in his annual report:
The output of the disabled employees, however, has doubled since 1950–51, and during 1953–54 stood at about £400 per man per annum.
Possibly some people would approach this matter, though not publicly in the House of Commons, for obvious reasons, from the point of view of its lack of profitability. We on this side of the House must and will emphasise that this Remploy concern was never intended to be an ordinary business concern with profit and loss measured merely in terms of £ s. d. We start our approach with the axiom that one cannot weigh the imponderable and cannot calculate the incalculable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading said, happiness, self-respect, a sense of belonging to a community, of being able to do something for one's family are things which can never be measured in terms of financial profit and loss.
I know that the losses on paper, in figures, are seemingly alarming, but we should not be put out unduly by these considerations. In 1951 the expenditure above income, including depreciation, was £1,732,000. In 1952 it was £2,443,000. In 1953 it was £2,380,000

and in 1954 £2,521,000. The estimated loss last year is slightly less than that for the previous year, at £2,430,000.
The Minister said in reply to a Parliamentary Question I put to him on 19th April,
I think it will be known to all of us that their work"—
that is Remploy's—
cannot be measured in that way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1955; Vol. 540, c. 13.]
Therefore, we must dismiss altogether this idea of Remploy being a matter of £ s. d. It is a social service and this departmental outlook of the Treasury, this thinking of communal life in terms of this and that Department, is completely irrelevant to the existing picture.
I do not see why we should not think of Remploy in terms of a hospital. Patients probably cost £5 or £6 a week to keep in hospital. [HON. MEMBERS: "Twenty pounds."] I am corrected. The figure is much larger. The same applies to institutions and social services, and we should think of Remploy in similar terms. The wages are certainly not extravagant. The standard rate is 2s. 9¾d. per hour for a 40-hour week. Surely that is not wild spending or extravagance in any sense of the words.
I should like to conclude by bringing the question into the focus of a constituency and of a community which I know very well, in which I live. We have a Remploy factory in Abertillery, and if ever industrial enterprise brought light and relief and real joy to a community that factory in Abertillery has done so. It employs 77 people. There are varying estimates of its full capacity. Some speak in terms of 150, but I think that that may be an exaggerated estimate. I am told by some authorities that the full capacity is 84.
In other words, 12 per cent. of the full complement of workers in the Remploy factory in Abertillery are still unused. But we have on the register in the Abertillery area, in Brynmawr, Blaina, Newbridge and Abertillery itself, 18 people, excluding those at Pontypool, who are still waiting, day after day, for an opportunity to have what the others have, that is self-respect, a feeling of being, in the nation, producers and citizens in the industrial sense of the word.
I know many of these people, people whom I always regarded before 1951,


when the Remploy factory was set up, as being completely unable to do a day's work, as being destined to live for ever on what assistance they could obtain from State sources. It is a never-ceasing miracle to go to that factory and to see them do a useful job of work and to know that a certain life is much enriched because of its place in that factory.
I want to conclude by joining with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading in an accusation of the Government. I do not believe that the Government are being prompted to the same degree in solicitude as we on this side. We are very proud of Remploy, and we wish that the Government were equally proud. We believe their restrictive practices in this regard deserve utter condemnation. The true watchword for Remploy should he "Expand."

8.11 p.m.

Mr. John C. Bidgood: In this preliminary canter, I ask, as is customary, for the indulgence of the House. I use the term "preliminary canter" for very obvious reasons. We are tonight discussing a body of people many of whom cannot walk, least of all canter. I am quite sure that hon Members, as they knock at doors in their constituencies, must have been appalled at the number of physically handicapped people with whom they came into contact.
I am sorry to say that in my own constituency that applies, and I think this is a fitting opportunity for me to make reference to somebody who is at present incapacitated yet not through any cause we are discussing tonight. I refer to my predecessor in the representation of my constituency, Sir Walter Fletcher, who I am quite sure will be very much missed on both sides of the House.
My authority for intervening in this debate is twofold: firstly, because over a number of years I have been chairman of a voluntary organisation which deals on a county basis with the welfare of the physically handicapped; and, secondly, because there is a Remploy factory in my constituency. Hon. Members will appreciate that, in view of the fact that I have for some years had first-hand dealing with the problems of the physically handicapped, I fully realise the importance of sheltered workshops.
I should like to refer the House to a circular to disablement officers' committees of Remploy, which contains this statement by the executive director of Remploy, Ltd.:
The Company has had to take the decision not to replace disabled workers leaving their employment for the time being except where production in a particular factory would be held up over labour shortage.
Those who have seen this circular will know that it means virtually that Remploy is closed to admissions.
I should like also to refer to a letter which, quite by a coincidence. I received only this morning from one of my constituents. It says:
However, my brother-in-law is still unemployed, and Remploy seems the only place to make him feel of use to the community. I sincerely trust you will do your utmost to help to solve Remploy's problems and so enable him again to follow a useful vocation.
I am not going to discuss the relative merits or demerits of the Government's policy on Remploy. That would possibly be entering the realms of controversy, and I have no wish to do that on this occasion. But what I should like to say is this. I am fully cognisant of the wonderful work that Remploy has done for a substantial period of years.
I should like to make this point, that unfortunately, due to the normal residential character of Remploy and the doubt attending the problem of travel, the severely disabled are finding insuperable obstacles in attending Remploy, even if they have the opportunity so to do. As I have said, we have a Remploy factory in my constituency. It draws its workers from 19 different districts, and many of them have to travel seven or eight miles to and from their work. I know from my own personal experience that voluntary organisations are having the utmost difficulty in placing in Remploy factories those whose needs they know. I agree that it is laid down that Remploy should provide home employment, but I understand that only about 100 people are being provided with such employment.
There is not the slightest doubt from what has been said this evening that 6,000 people employed in 90 factories touches only the fringe of the problem of the physically handicapped. We have heard that during the years 1953–54, the Civil Estimates Committee authorised the


sum of £2,280,000 in Remploy grants. This represents a subsidy of £7 6s. per worker per week after crediting the sale of the product. Each Member has his own view as to whether or not that is a good or a bad thing. Some hon. Members may deplore what they call a heavy subsidy; others may require some relationship between output and earnings; yet others may condemn this policy as not being conducive to a sense of responsibility in those employed in these factories or a maximum overcoming of individual handicaps or deformities; and yet others may feel that this is money very well spent.
There is, therefore, every conceivable shade of opinion on both sides of the House. But one particular point with which every Member of the House is in agreement is that the actual fact of disablement is not the most important thing to the person so disabled. The most important factor in the lives of the disabled is the sense of boredom, the sense of frustration, the sense of the inability to compete in the open market which each and every one of us wishes to see removed. I should like to ask the House, can we reconcile the subsidy I have already mentioned with the frustration of those unable to obtain employment with Remploy? How can we help those who are already employed with Remploy to the greatest possible production compatible with their own individual deformity, and how can we produce a spirit of achievement as distinct from one of charity? There is not the slightest doubt that few of our disabled people want charity; all they want is opportunity. So, for the next minute or two, I propose to offer the House four suggestions, none of which I recommend specifically but each of which is worthy of the consideration of hon. Members.
Firstly, would it or would it not be possible to grade pensions on assessment of disability, and thereafter pay the rate for the job? It could possibly provide an incentive to the fullest production in Remploy factories or, on the other hand, the reverse result might be achieved.
Secondly, I have already referred to the difficulties of placement due to the non-residential character of Remploy factories. Some hon. Members may think that there would be less wastage

and that difficulties of placement might be overcome if substantial encouragement were given to employers for training within industry. We know that financial incentives would be required to offset the greater amount of attention, the slower rate of adaptation and the provision of special equipment. However, it is up to each and every one of us to decide in our own minds whether the Exchequer appropriation would exceed the sum now being spent in special training centres.
Thirdly, I would like to suggest to the House that local authorities should make fuller use of the residential training facilities of voluntary organisations throughout the country. They have powers to do so under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948. and also under Circular 32/51. I am rather concerned, with regard to the circular, that only 94 out of 146 local authorities have yet submitted schemes to the Minister, and of those 94 many have gone no further than to submit schemes. Some hon. Members might think that the Ministry of Labour should consider more sympathetically applications for grants in respect of sheltered workshops where residential facilities already exist.
My fourth point is that it might be wise to consider the possibility of setting up a co-ordinating committee of all Government Departments dealing with all aspects of the physically handicapped.
In conclusion, I would like to misquote a proverb: An ounce of training is worth a ton of pity. I am sure that if we, as a nation, can realise the responsibility we owe to the physically handicapped, and can give more than that ounce of training, ultimately there will be a substantial saving to the Exchequer. What is more important, we shall give to the disabled peace of mind and a spirit of independence which cannot possibly be counted in terms of £ s. d.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am sure it is the wish of all hon. Members who have heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) to congratulate him on his valuable contribution to our discussions. We recognise at the same time the record of public service which has prompted the hon. Gentleman to


intervene on this occasion. If I may express a personal hope, it is that he will continue to speak in a way which gives us great comfort on these benches. The hon. Gentleman referred to his predecessor. We remember him as one of the most delightful Members of the House to whom it was always a pleasure to listen, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is following in his footsteps.
May I also say a kindly word about the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary? I have every reason personally to appreciate the interest which both of them have shown in the question we are discussing tonight. I appreciate very much their interest in Remploy and, for that reason, I appreciate the strong pressure which must have been brought to bear upon their Department to take the step which has been taken this year. If we had not had a Minister who was so personally devoted to the problem,. we would have had harsher economies than we are discussing tonight.
This is really a mean and sordid economy, and it is not to be considered alone. One of the first economies of the Tory Government in 1951 was to impose the burden of charges upon cripples getting their appliances. We protested vigorously against that. We pledged ourselves to remove the charges. We protest equally against this petty economy at the expense of the same handicapped people. I am sure that when we return to office at the next Election we shall restore Remploy to its proper place in our scheme of social services.
This is a particularly mean economy if we consider first how it is being enforced. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were here, I am sure he would excuse my saying that he was ill at ease. He gave us a lot of irrelevancies. He talked about the loss per head. We are not concerned about that when considering the economy that is being made here. He talked about the report of the Organisation and Methods Division. We are not concerned about that report which was made subsequent to these economies.
What we are concerned about here is a reduction of the social services. We know that we had the Report of the Estimates Committee and the company endeavoured to carry out certain economies. We know equally that each disabled

man is very properly a charge on the Exchequer and these economies, simply and solely, are directed to reducing the number of disabled people who are a charge upon the Exchequer. That is why I say that it is a mean and sordid economy. If I may amplify the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), I think the purpose of the reduction of the loans for capital expenditure was for the same purpose, deliberately to enforce a restriction upon the activities of the company. It will only make things which are already difficult enough more difficult still.
Personally I would not mind if we were discussing economy in the light of the report of the Organisation and Methods Division, but we are not doing that. We are simply closing the doors of Remploy to further disabled people, and so, in that way, the Government will be pleasing the Tory back benchers who have been howling for economy in the last few years. Of course, it is proper Tory economic policy to make the weakest go to the wall first. We know that these disabled people have not the effective lobbies that other people have. They are in small numbers spread over the country.
I say this in passing about the Organisation and Methods inquiry, that I myself feel that this is the wrong form of inquiry. I mentioned this, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, when I made a suggestion that we might have an inquiry along the lines of the Fleck inquiry into the N.C.B. I made it for this reason. I think that the nigger in the woodpile here is the Treasury. The Treasury is composed of the wrong sort of people to inquire into the possible grounds of economy of Remploy. In any case, O. & M., if they provided any service, ought to have provided the information for an independent committee on the lines of the Fleck Committee.
So far as the board is concerned, I welcome the appointment of Mr. Zealley. I had the pleasure of serving with Mr. Zealley, in an unpaid capacity, I hasten to add, on a public board. I do not know what Mr. Zealley's views are, but my views are that if we are having a public board with considerable commercial responsibility, it ought to be largely a paid full time board. We ought to get away from the idea that this is a charitable


organisation and should therefore depend on voluntary help. This is largely a full-time job. I feel that in the main the board should comprise paid members.
Another thing which we have to face up to, which affects not only Remploy but other boards, is how to improve the relationship between such a board and the Government. It was for that reason that I suggested that the intervention of O. & M., although it might be helpful, was not the right sort of intervention. I think that we have a lot of unnecessary and avoidable friction through this direct relationship, often at a relatively low level, between the Treasury and the public boards. I should have hoped that we would have had, in the light of our experience regarding Remploy in the last few years, constructive proposals on making the board more highly-powered. I say in passing that I welcome the steps which are now being taken to create consultative machinery at national level. Perhaps it ought to have been done previously. At any rate we welcome it now.
The second thing I would have expected, in the light of our experience over the past few years, is that we would have had before us some results of a scientific study of the employment of disabled people in two regards: which is the best employment from the economic point of view, and, equally important, which sort of employment is most satisfactory to disabled people. I feel somewhat critical of the Select Committee on Estimate C, because I do not think that it paid sufficient regard to the primary purpose of the Remploy scheme.
I wish to say a few words too about one of the other constructive proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading. The Minister and everyone else concedes that we want long-run contracts providing some guarantee of work to this organisation. Have we all forgotten the cardinal recommendations of the Tomlinson Report? Surely we should go back to those recommendations. In a Britain with full employment, private employers may have to face the fact that some work should be carried in sheltered employment on non-competitive terms, and the workers should recognise the fact that some form of employment should be provided possibly only for people in sheltered employment. If we used Remploy

in terms of full employment we should be releasing workers who are not handicapped for other work, and so be helping the national economy. I would have much preferred the Government to come along and talk in those terms.
I join with other hon. Members in saying that I would welcome the Government saying, "We have had this experience; we are now going to make proposals generally for the employment of handicapped people." I recognise at once the work done by the Piercy Committee, but the time has come when we should have a public corporation catering for the employment of handicapped workers and co-ordinating the work. I am not asking for the individual component parts of the pattern to give up their identity, but I should like the work in hospitals, in the 69 blind workshops, and in Remploy, and the work sponsored in private undertakings, to be co-ordinated so that we could be certain that the best work was being done in both senses, not only economically, but also by providing the greatest satisfaction to the disabled people.
I will conclude, as many other hon. Members have done, on a personal note. When I was seeing constituents one Saturday evening, I was asked to go downstairs. I went down and saw a poor fellow suffering from Parkinson's disease who, for that reason, was unable to climb the stairs. I am very happy to say that he obtained work at a Remploy factory, but I very much regret that if I have a similar experience I shall now have to tell my constituent that he will not obtain employment in Remploy.
This is a question not of statistics but of individuals. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it clear that there are still thousands of disabled people seeking work in sheltered employment. While there are any such handicapped people who are without work, it is the duty and responsibility of the country to ensure that they are provided with work, and work which is satisfying to them.

8.37 p.m.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I do not often find myself in agreement with the great majority of the words uttered by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), but I thought


that tonight he made an uncharacteristically moderate speech with most of which I agreed. On the other hand, I imagine that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), judging by his excessive use of phrases such as "mean and sordid economy," still believes that we are in an electioneering atmosphere. His taunt about the Labour Party winning the next General Election is beside the point. He should get it into his head now that it will be very many years before the Labour Party wins another General Election.
None the less, my right hon. and learned Friend should accept the fact that many of his hon. Friends are not at all happy about the situation in Remploy. I agree with much that has been said. I agree that we must look at the problem not in terms of pounds, shillings and pence but in terms of a social service, of rehabilitation, and of giving men and women an opportunity to lead a full and profitable life which would otherwise not be possible for them or which they could have only in small measure but for the existence of Remploy.
On the other hand, we ought not to exaggerate the problem. There are at present about 6,000 people employed in Remploy factories. The total number of disabled people eligible for such work under Section II is about 4,000. Not all the eligible people on unemployment registers are able to obtain employment ill Remploy factories; they may be too far away from factories, or they may be in isolated pockets of two or three. The number in that category is about 1,300. In other words, the problem that we have to consider is what is to be done with 2,700–3,000 disabled people under Section II for whom employment could be found if factories were available or opportunities existed in factories.

Sir Frederick Messer: Does the hon. and gallant Member know that there is a large number, a number which is not known, of unregistered disabled people?

Squadron Leader Cooper: We have to legislate on the facts which are known and not on speculation. I am dealing with the official figures published by the Ministry of Labour. I have no knowledge of the numbers of people who are unregistered, any more than has the hon. Member for Tottenham.
The problem is: what are we to do with these 3,000 people for whom work can be found? There is no right hon. or hon. Gentleman on this side of the House who deliberately wants to adopt any cheese-paring policy because of a dislike for disabled people. I can assure the House that there is as much desire on this side of the House for improved social services as exists on the other side. I believe, in spite of the gibes coming sotto voce from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), that our record over the last few years justifies that statement.
At present, we require about four new factories to satisfy the requirements of Remploy. One is needed in the Liverpool area. I do not agree with the present policy of calling a halt in the expansion programme. I do agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North that the nigger in the woodpile is the Treasury. The Treasury is a very soulless and unfriendly organisation. It deals with pounds, shillings and pence and, in many cases, is not concerned with human lives.
Through the Minister of Labour the House must very strongly express to the Treasury its view that money must be found, that these new factories must be provided and that employment must be found for these 3,000 people who can do something worth while. To put it another way, in private industry it is now virtually impossible to find an adequate supply of labour. Supposing, as has been suggested, that these disabled men have a productivity no greater than 10 per cent., that means that we have about 300 men who can provide something for 52 weeks in the year towards the country's economy, something which is not being provided at present. I submit that in our present state of affairs we cannot afford to allow the productivity of 300 men to lie fallow.
I find it difficult to support the views put forward by some hon. Members about the way in which Government Departments and local authorities might help. It would be very wrong for Government Departments to be forced to give a definite proportion of the orders which they have to place to Remploy factories. If that policy were adopted, it is very likely that we would run into very considerable difficulties with the trade unions who are looking after people in other industries.

Mr. Collins: is not the hon. and gallant Member aware that there already exists a priority list, including Remploy and blind workshops and others, that Government Departments offer a proportion of contracts to the priority list already, and that that causes no trouble whatever?

Squadron Leader Cooper: In such circumstances the proportion is very small indeed in relation to what we are discussing. To provide work for all these people, orders running into several millions of pounds would have to be found. I believe that the hon. Member has some business experience and will know that it is almost impossible to find orders of that size.
What I submit has to be done—and it is in this respect that I think the organisation in Remploy could be considerably improved—is to give it a first-class sales organisation to sell the goods, which can be sold at competitive prices against those of private industry. I believe that that can be done, and that it is within the capacity of the existing factories to do more than is now being done.
Various Departments in the Government do very silly things in regard to this sort of organisation, and I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, for example, that in the past year the rents of these factories, which are under the control of the Ministry of Works, have been increased by no less than £3,000 a year, and that Remploy has been informed that in the next three years the rents of Crown property factories are to be increased by no less than £26,000.

Mr. Mikardo: Idiotic.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I entirely agree with the hon. Member that it is idiotic to give factories substantial grants to cover a deficit and then make a substantial increase in the rents which they have to pay. It is that sort of thing which the Ministry of Labour must take into consideration when discussing this matter with other Departments that are concerned with Remploy.
We cannot sit back and allow the Treasury to dictate a policy which will curtail the activities of about 3,000 men

and women whose only desire is to be given a job of work to do and to make a valid and valuable contribution to our economic prosperity. It is not just a question of pounds, shillings and pence. To give these people, who now sit at home, often eating their hearts out, as was said by one hon. Gentleman, being a burden to their families—to give them work will give them a mental, moral and psychological stimulus which will be of enormous benefit to themselves and the country as a whole.
In criticising the policy now being pursued, we must also bear in mind the very great contribution which Remploy has already made, and should not overlook the fact that in competitive industry, which is unfettered, there are more than 2,000 men and women who have been trained in Remploy factories who are now able to work side by side with their more fortunate colleagues and earn a decent wage to enable their families to live in comfort.
conclude by appealing to my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the position that we have reached in this matter, and to see whether it is not possible to persuade the Treasury that this policy of retrenchment, which nobody wants in this matter, shall be reversed, so that we shall continue to perform the task to which we have all set our hands in this House for many years—to look after these people who, in many cases, owe their disability to service to their country in other directions.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Victor Collins: The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron-Leader Cooper), having objected to the words "mean and sordid" used by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), allowed his own better feelings to overcome him, and proved that, in his own view, the Government would he very unkind indeed if they allowed 3,000 disabled people to go on living without any hope of employment.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he did not feel that the Minister would be able to do quite so much about contracts from Government Departments as had been suggested by my hon. Friend. I do do not agree. I think that very much more can be done by Government


Departments in furnishing Remploy, and, indeed, other priority organisations, with a share of Government contracts if sufficient good will and energy are displayed in the matter.
I ask the Minister to investigate in particular the methods used by Government Departments in placing their contracts with organisations like Remploy and others on the priority list. He will find that the normal procedure is that contracts go out to tender. The Government Departments find the lowest tender and then get on to Remploy or a similar organisation and offer them the work. Very often the price at which the contract is offered is not only less than the total cost of the material and wages, without overheads, but is below the cost of wages alone.
These offers are a violation of the fair wages clause, by the Government Department which is itself responsible for printing the fair wages clause on the contract. It is a most reprehensible system. I assure hon. Members that I am speaking from knowledge and experience in this matter, because it has been my lot, on behalf of the trade federation of which I am president, to go to Government Departments and protest on behalf of blind workshops at this very practice.
It is utterly useless for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have to face the criticism of committees because Remploy is uneconomic, when other Departments in the Administration are endeavouring to contribute to that situation. I assure the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South that I am speaking as an ordinary employer when I say that there is no objection on our part to organisations on the priority list getting a far larger slice of Government contracts.
The hon. and gallant Member was good enough to say that I had had experience of business. Most of my business life has been passed in the basket-making industry, which, unfortunately for me, is regarded by everyone as the prime favourite for handicapped workers. For the last 23 years I have been president of the employers' federation of this industry, and the workshops for the blind are members of my federation. I have thus had considerable experience of working with handicapped people and, in particular, with blind workers.
I regret the tendency in this debate almost tacitly to assume that the return of output per worker in Remploy is at anything like a reasonable distance from that of other people. In making baskets almost the only prime essentials are a good pair of arms and hands. Of course, sight is a very great additional advantage if you can have it. We find that the relationship between blind workers and sighted workers in our industry is that the sighted worker turns out, on the average, three times as much work as the blind worker. In Remploy, I understand that the average is about one-sixth. That is not good enough.
I was interested to hear what the Minister said about one-fifth of Remploy workers having only 10 per cent. of the output of normal workers. It happened that I had occasion, some time ago, to discuss with representatives of Remploy the output of a small section of one of the factories which they wanted to send out regularly. It was the output of 15 workers. When we came to discuss the matter, the output was only the equivalent of two ordinary workers, which con firms what the Minister said. It is nothing like good enough.
We ought to be considering this question of Remploy in an altogether broader way. We have built up conditions in which blind people have a special place. No one wants to take anything from them. Blindness is a terrible affliction, but there are other afflictions which, in many respects, are equally bad. All handicapped people should have the same opportunities, the same support, the same facilities as we have been able to give to blind workers. I refer to the severely handicapped people, the spastics, the epileptics, and so on. I believe that Remploy should be developed into an organisation catering for all except the blind. I believe, too, that these figures which have been mentioned are completely false when we consider the very large cost of training.
In an intervention, I mentioned to the Minister an intake of about 1,400 people in one year, of whom only about 300 remained in the organisation at the end of the year. It is true that several hundreds had gone into open industry. That is a tremendous dividend. It cannot be regarded in cash terms, but it is the finest dividend of all. The Remploy


report quotes the case of a man sitting in a chair for fifteen years, until one day he heard of Remploy. He does not sit there any longer. He is out working in the factory, doing a useful job.
There are 6,000 such people in those factories today, and there could be many more. All it really wants is the good will and the finance of the Government. It wants not only the good will of the Minister and of his Parliamentary Secretary—we know that is there—but somehow that side of the House has to move the Treasury sufficiently to see that the wherewithal is provided.
I began my remarks by saying that I do not accept for one moment that the output of the men in Remploy is anything like as good as it should be. Hon. Members who come to my small factory see several self-propelling carriages lined up. They belong to people who have come to us in the ordinary way, through the employment exchange and knowing nothing. We have to pay our way—we are not complete philanthropists—but it has served our purpose to train those people. Some of them have perhaps a body and arms but very little else, but I can assure the House that today they are competing on level terms with, and earning wages equal to those of, 100 per cent. fit men. If that can be done in an ordinary commercial organisation—on a small scale, I admit—then I say that it can be done very much better than it is at present by an organisation such as Remploy.
With a proper balance of factors, most physically-handicapped people can be economically employed. What we need is a medical industrial rehabilitation, a medical assessment, a real study of the needs of people related to their own capabilities. If we had that there could be a far greater intake into Remploy and a far greater number of trained people going into open industry. Remploy should be regarded as a training unit for those people to go out into industry—something quite separate from its function as a training unit for its own industrial and factory purposes.
When, as he eventually will, the Minister considers the report of the committee, I hope he will find out just how much of Remploy's expenses go to training and credit it with that—and

credit it, too, with what goes out in trained labour, able to take its full part in the world in open competition. The Minister will know of the little organisation called Michael Works, Ltd., which started in 1946 and lasted for three years. It had only 60 places. It only took people considered to be economically unemployable, but in three years it turned out 212 fully-trained people who are now in open industry and 98 per cent. of them are still in employment.
That organisation found itself in difficulties because of lack of capital, but its dividends in human happiness were tremendous. The organisation, or what was left of it, was taken over by Remploy, but, unfortunately, not with quite the same spirit. It may be that the intention was there, but certainly not the method which had animated the smaller organisation. I hope that spirit can be recaptured and that it will animate the Minister so that he can animate the Chancellor to provide, first, the wherewithal and, secondly, the method.
The Minister cannot deny, following the statement of the chairman of Remploy, that the intake has been halted through lack of funds. That is a blot on the Government's administration which no words can wipe away. Only action can wipe it away. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us tonight that the funds will be provided and that when the new chairman takes over he will be given the wherewithal to do the job, the good will and the full backing of the Government; and that we shall be able to build up an organisation for all the disabled people of this country of which the whole nation can be proud.

9.2 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I listened to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) and I thought he was so anxious to make a case that he was somewhat unfair. He suggested that if we are not willing to build more Remploy factories or spend more money on Remploy we must necessarily be mean—that was the word he used—and unkind to disabled people. None of us would like to be charged with that.
I venture to think that the case suggested by the Motion put down by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is misconceived. It must not be assumed that the only thing to do for disabled persons


is to place them in a Remploy factory. I have the greatest regard for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour, and I am quite certain that he would not lend himself to any mean practice. I have the greatest regard, too, for another friend of mine who used to be in the House—Sir Brunel Cohen, who, I understand is to be chairman of the group of factories for this year. I take note of what he tells me, but, in spite of his advice, which I value, I feel bound to place before the House my own very long experience in this matter.
I do not consider that it is always or necessarily best to invite disabled persons to enter sheltered factories or sheltered employment. Some persons are wholly incapable of employment in open industry but are still capable of employment in sheltered factories or under special conditions, and such cases may justify workshops exclusively designed for them, but I think the value of special sheltered factories has been greatly exaggerated out of sentiment and sympathy for the disabled.
Indeed, I go as far as to say that wherever and whenever it is possible to place a disabled person with an ordinary employer in competitive work, alongside normal workmen, then it is a crime if, instead of doing that, we place him in a sheltered factory. Persons in sheltered factories become introspective. The very fact that they are among people 80 or 90 per cent. of whom are similarly disabled is, I think, a handicap to them and not an advantage.
May I substantiate these views, which seem to be in dissonance with views expressed by many in this House, from my personal experience? I have been intimately and directly connected with the livelihood and well-being of some few thousand persons blinded in the two world wars. If I may be allowed to say so, they are my proteges and my friends. St. Dunstan's, the organisation which cares for them, has great resources and great experience. It would be quite easy for us to establish sheltered workshops here and there if we thought that was the right thing to do, but we do not. We have trained our men to work in factories and in commercial enterprises on their own account, and we have no blinded soldiers working in sheltered factories.
We have not taken advantage of the traditional system in the blind world in which blind persons go into what are called workshops for the blind. We have not taken advantage of Remploy. For the majority of these men who are not now too old or retired but in the prime of their life, we have found employment on their account or in other people's factories. If a blinded soldier can work in a factory where he is the only one who is disabled, or possibly there are only two or three out of 100, he is infinitely better off than if he works in a sheltered workshop where he is one among many. Without making too many concessions to his disability, his fellow workmen, the foreman and shop steward, as well as the manager and employer, will see that he gets work suitable for him.
I believe that to be not only the right way, the best way, for the nation to deal with this problem, but by far the best way for the disabled person himself. He is much happier working in open industry. I would say that any scores of thousands of pounds or any hundreds of thousands of pounds that the Ministry of Labour can spend in the business of settling and placing disabled persons in open industry would be infinitely more worth while to them than the same number of pounds spent in building secluded special factories for them to work in.
May I come to the heart of the matter by taking the most difficult case of all? I am told that we must have secluded factories in order that we may provide employment for epileptic persons. I should say that scores of thousands of pounds or even hundreds of thousands of pounds should be spent in educating the trades unions and employers to believe that many epileptic persons can do 90 per cent. of a man's full work and are affected only from time to time, and then for a very short time, by their disability. If we could spend the money persuading people that these persons are very nearly normal, we would do much better than by building special factories in which to segregate them and make quite certain that they are not normal.
I have chosen the most difficult case, which is said to be one which we must place apart. I do not think it good for disabled persons to be placed apart. They are not so happy, so well employed or helped, and they do not contribute so


much to the well-being of the nation. I will believe that sympathy among hon. Members opposite has led to this Motion, but that it is misplaced. It would be far better were the Ministry of Labour to see what could be done to place increasing numbers of disabled persons in open industry relying on the benevolent and kindly help of employers. In my view, it is far better that Government and philanthropy should spend their money and give their thought to trying to persuade employers and trade unions to take enormous trouble about each case and to try to place it rather than send it away to a special place. That is like sending people away out of life itself.
I would say to the mining industry, "Do not assume that you can escape your responsibility if a man is hurt in the mines by sending him off to the State to employ him in Remploy. What you should do is to use all the ability and ingenuity in your union and all the good will of the Coal Board to find him a job in the surroundings to which he is accustomed, amongst the people whom he knows and amongst the companions of his life's work."
I do not honestly believe that the solution is segregation. On the contrary, wherever it is possible to place a person in ordinary industry by an exercise of special skill, special powers of persuasion or special good will, that person and the nation are being done a good turn.
In the light of these remarks, I do not think that the criticism of the Government—that they have not been willing at this stage to increase Remploy—is a fair one. There is a place for a system like Remploy just as there is a place in the blind world for Workshops for the Blind. But let me observe, in passing, that whereas in the past the only employment for the blind was in special workshops, at this date more blind persons are employed in open industry than in blind workshops—and rightly so; and they are the happier elements.
I therefore say that although I am sure that this criticism, especially as it is sponsored by the Leader of the Opposition, himself an ex-Service man and one whose view in this matter I greatly admire, is sincere and sympathetic, I am certain that it is misplaced and that the House would do better to encourage the Ministry to

carry on with this good work on a modest scale but to spend any money it has to spare in getting the disabled back into normal life.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I thought it proper, and I hope that hon. Members will agree with me, to rise at the last possible moment in order to give as many hon. Members as possible an opportunity to speak. I know that in that I am supported by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. Therefore, I must hurry to say what I have to say in the few minutes that are at my disposal.
I should like to reply for a moment or two to what has been said by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). The great difficulty about his speech is that I think it is rather misplaced. The hon. Member speaks upon this subject with almost unrivalled authority, but on this occasion he appears to have missed the goal. What he said has been taken up many years ago.
I remember, for example, that in 1946 or 1947 my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), then Minister of Labour, and I addressed the conference in Tavistock House of employers and medical authorities, when we called for and received a very great deal of co-operation in making a job analysis in order to place in open employment a large number of men, particularly those who had been injured in the war. But we are dealing here with a different sort of problem.
I thought that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale might have recognised that one of the great claims made by Remploy is that it has already trained a large number of people to work in open employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but Remploy must be given the credit for that, because it has been a sort of training escalator which has taken handicapped people from their homes and trained them to the point where they can be efficiently employed in open industry. To that extent Remploy has lost the services of efficient workmen, but private enterprise has gained. It is no use arguing that there is no case at all for Remploy. Even the Minister would not argue that.

Sir L Fraser: Nor did I.

Mr. Bevan: But the hon. Member wanted to do so on a diminished scale. If Remploy is to be even further diminished, I am afraid that the hon. Member will carry very few people with him from any side of the House.
To speak in a debate on a subject of this kind is peculiarly difficult. All of us in the House are influenced by personal contacts, and to some extent we sometimes blur the main issues that have to be discussed. For example, I confess to having feelings of personal friendship and regard for the Minister of Labour, and I find it, therefore, very difficult to knock him about. I have to choose between this unusually benevolent feeling on my part and the adjuration which I have just received in a form of a letter from a handicapped person. He is 50 per cent. handicapped and has been trained, but he cannot obtain a job at Remploy and is being kept by his wife, who is a nurse.
He writes:
I will close hoping you knock hell out of those complacent Tories and all those who draw fat pay packets pretending to look after the cripples' welfare.
Yours to a cinder …
The House will see, therefore, that I am in the unhappy position of being torn between the Scylla and the Charybdis of my own benevolence towards the Minister and my desire to win the approval of the writer of that letter.
This is a comparatively narrow field and hon. Members have exposed it to almost its full extent. It may be rather wider than the Minister suggested. He told us that he thought that perhaps there were about 4,000 handicapped people in Great Britain who could work only in sheltered occupations. Many of my hon. Friends take the view that the register would be much larger if there were more prospect of work. We cannot tell. Our experience has taught us in the last ten years that there is always a much larger number of forgotten citizens in these kind of categories than we know about.
I remember, for example, that when I was collecting statistics at the Ministry of Health to determine how many aural aids might be required, we had a figure of about 100,000 but it is going up to 150,000, to 200,000, and to 250,000. In certain grades of society there is a large number of poor, sick, weak and helpless people who crawl into the light when

they think that there is a chance of getting warm, but until they think that there is a chance they remain in the darkness. Therefore, we do not know how many people there are at the moment, but we are being asked to accept statistics, the figures that are known, and not to deal in imponderables.
Suppose we take the Minister's own figure—4,000, of which perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 would be capable of receiving advantage from sheltered occupation. I think that that is a reasonable figure. Any hon. Member in any part of the House can challenge it if he wishes.

Squadron Leader Cooper: That is roughly the figure I gave.

Mr. Bevan: That is the figure that the hon. and gallant Member gave and I believe that the Minister said that it was 3,000. We do not know.
But is it not a reproach on the present Administration that we do not know? We have all kinds of market surveys. We have the most refined organisation for finding out what people believe about certain things, and indeed the Government's own activities are based from time to time on market surveys. Surely it would have been quite easy long ago to have made a complete analysis of the small number of people to find out how many of them would be able to benefit by sheltered occupation. The Minister should know it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us, because if he is, then one certain fact at once emerges, that we are not here dealing with a problem which would be a bottomless pit of public expenditure.
We have always been warned from the other side of the House that we on this side were inclined to be too sentimental and careless about public expenditure on the social services. We have been told by many eminent persons in the medical profession that it would be possible to spend many more hundreds of millions of pounds on serving the sick people without getting a corresponding advantage either to them or the nation. With a great deal of that criticism I am sympathetic, because obviously there must he financial limits to what any society can spend on any particular kind of social service.
We are not face to face here with the unplumbable, the unknowable, the unpredictable. We are not faced with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has to defend himself against importunate Ministers because he would not know when the end would be reached to their requests. Here, the position is quite clear. The Minister himself said how clear it was. We are here dealing with the fact that employment in Remploy factories has been stabilised at 6,000 when there are still a proportion of 4,000 who could benefit by employment in those factories. Does any hon. Member opposite deny that? Does the Minister deny it?
What, then, has stopped the employment? I want to know from the Minister why is it that after six years the development of Remploy has been stopped at 6,000. It really is rather unforgivable, because what we have done actually is break faith with broken ex-Service men. We have done it, too, in the most frivolous way. We have not done it because huge sums of money are involved. We have done it wantonly and frivolously, and the Government must accept the responsibility.
The Minister suggested in the course of his speech that we, on our part, had to call a halt in 1949 to the development of this service for what he hinted were reasons of national economic crisis. But that is not quite correct. If he looks at the figures he will see that in the very year about which he spoke the number of factories jumped from 47 to 73, the biggest leap of all. I will give the figures, because we must remember that here was a new and developing service which was called into existence for two main reasons: first, the awakened national conscience which forced us to give assistance to weak people who had been formerly neglected; and, secondly, because it was expected that the war would produce far larger numbers of injured people than, fortunately, was ever the case. So the Ministry of Labour formed the estimate of 132 factories. From 1947 onwards they were being built at the rate of, in 1947, 6; in 1948, 15; in 1949, 47; in 1950, 73; in 1951, 86; in 1952, 91; in 1953, 90; and, today, 90.
When the Administration opposite came into office they stopped the construction of further factories in Class II

with the knowledge that, on the Minister's own admission, there were still 4,000 people who could benefit, of whom, on the showing of past history, at least 1,000 would have graduated through Remploy into open employment.
Why has the figure been reduced? The Minister did not give the explanation, but we know it. The explanation is that the Minister lost the tug-of-war with the Treasury. The Minister is a very skilful lawyer. If there is anything to be extracted from a case, he will extract it. He is much more skilful in the arts of advocacy than I am and, if his case is threadbare, it is not because he could not knit it closer but because the threads are too wide apart.
The Minister lost the argument with the Treasury but, nevertheless, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not so innocent a politician as sometimes people think he is. He is one who believes that virtue ought to be reinforced by guile and he had an argument with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I can easily conjure up in my mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said to him, "Look here, Walter, I want to have a reduction in this cost. I am asking everybody else to make his contribution. What contribution are you going to make?" In my experience Chancellors of the Exchequer act as though there is a democracy among facts and that everybody ought to make a contribution when sacrifices are needed, including the cripples. Why, was it not the same Chancellor of the Exchequer who, for the sake of only £95,000 last year, put 50 per cent. charges on cripples? And all that hon. Gentlemen opposite got for that miserable, sordid, squalid, mean operation was £95,000.
It is true, of course, that hon. Gentlemen opposite can now sit back. They have a majority. Unfortunately, the cripples are in a minority. If the cripples were in a majority, hon. Gentlemen would not be opposite. But, of course, the political morality of the party opposite is so high that they can easily exploit the cripples because they are few. So the Government put £95,000 a year on cripples, people injured in industry. Tomorrow we shall be discussing the recruitment of men into the coal mines, and hon. Gentlemen opposite encourage people to get hurt in the mines but


refuse them employment in Remploy if they are injured and put a 50 per cent. charge on an artificial appliance if they are injured in the pits. So hon. Gentlemen must not, when they discuss the social services, imagine that they have a case which will stand up, because it will not. It is a poor one.
Again, why was 6,000 decided upon? There is an excellent reason. It was because 6,000 was the figure we reached and, therefore, in their discussions with each other the Minister of Labour probably said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Look here, Rab, I cannot go to the House of Commons and defend a smaller figure in Remploy than the Labour people got." So it stuck at 6,000. There is no other conceivable explanation. There is nothing sacrosanct about 6,000, except that we achieved it in the years when we were building up again, when there were great difficulties, as hon. Members on this side of the House know, when there was a temporary halt in the building up of Remploy factories. It was occasioned by the fact that we ran out of trained personnel and they had to be built up before we could expand further.
Therefore, for a while we had to halt, but we took the leap in those years. Ever since the party opposite has been in power, the number of factories has been reduced. It has been said by the Minister that a proportion—although he did not tell us the proportion—of the 4,000 with which we are dealing are capable of only 10 per cent. of the production of a normal worker. He does not tell us what proportion of them are capable of only 10 per cent., because he has not found out. He does not want to find out because, if he did, he could not defend his feelings against the revelation. So he remains in ignorance of the fact. It obviously is not much more than a very small percentage, and, therefore, it seems to us on this side of the House that the Government have failed to make a case at all from the very beginning.
Why is it that we attach very great importance to this matter? There is, first, the human side. I think that hon. Members on the other side sometimes do not recognise that many of these social services have come into existence not only because the conscience of society will no longer stand the suffering that

formerly occurred, but because there have been profound changes in the structure of the family over the last few generations. The specialisation of modern industry has broken up the family. Until now it has been a comparatively small unit. In past societies the crippled or sick members of the family could be looked after by the larger group which the family represented, and social services in those days were not as necessary as they are now because the family provided a sort of raft. A man or woman was safe because he or she was supported by the family.
Now the family is much smaller and, therefore, society has to take the place of the larger family group. That is a very profound reason why the social services have to be built up. It is not merely a consequence of the creeping paralysis of Socialism, such as the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) once described it, but because we have to adapt our institutions to the changed pattern of social organisation. That is why we are, in a very special sense, the guardians of these handicapped people and have to come to their rescue.
I do not need to tell hon. Members in any part of the House that in this balance sheet which we are being asked to consider a very large number of items are always left out. For example, the Minister of Labour can form no estimate at all of the cost to the social services by reason of the fact that these handicapped people are not being rehabilitated. When they are left to their own resources, they decline; they become depressed; they become introspective; they very often develop all sorts of mental disorders and become permanent charges on the other social services. That figure is not in the balance sheet at all.
That is the sort of myopic way in which the Treasury always reasons. If it cannot give a precise figure, then, of course, the figure does not exist at all, and the result is that expenditure on the other social services mounts up, but because it cannot be attributed to Treasury neglect in another respect no attention is paid to it. So we are pleading here that not only is this is a human activity which we are asking to be expanded, but that it is also a sensible one. It is in the national interest that these people should be trained and be able to make their contribution to society as a whole.
I seriously suggest to the Minister—I believe that in this matter I speak for the conscience of each hon. Member if he were able to express it freely this evening without having to consider the party Whips—that this is a mean and miserable business which no one would really want to defend. If hon. Gentlemen opposite want to pass a vote of thanks to their right hon. and learned Friend for the work that he has done, the best thing for them to do would be to go privately to the Treasury and say, "Look here, Rab. You have gone too far. This is something that we cannot defend. For goodness' sake, put your hand in your pocket and find the additional £1 million which is necessary to bring light, hope and succour into the homes of between 2,000 and 3,000 cripples in Great Britain."

9.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I should like, first, to say that there was, of course, no need for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to table their Motion. In respect of the desire of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself to have a debate on Remploy, they are knocking at an open door. It is well known to hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), who have taken a continuing interest in the subject, that we have never said we feared or wanted to avoid a debate in the House. Indeed, I think it a very good thing for Remploy, and probably a very good thing for its future, that it should occasionally be discussed in this House.
Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I has any objection at all to any criticism made by hon. Members on either side of the House in the course of doing their duty. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and I are in agreement when say that sympathy is a generous emotion and there is nothing wrong with hon. Members on either side of the House asking the Government to try to do more for these individuals, because they deserve, and have, everybody's sympathy. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman had knocked a lot more hell out of us

than he has, we should not have minded. We should have said that it was a very good case.

Mr. Bevan: Then give us the money.

Mr. Watkinson: Before we come to the money we had better deal with a few facts. I am not going to weary the House with a lot of statistics. This is a human problem. Where we differ from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is not in our interpretation of the desires of the Treasury, for example. I know the views of the right hon. Gentleman about all Chancellors, including his own; they have always been quite plain. The difference between us lies in what we are really trying to do for the disabled people. I want to look at the matter in that light.
I must first correct one thing. The right hon. Gentleman said categorically that when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were in office they reached an employment figure of 6,000 in Remploy. That is not so. We all make mistakes, but I must correct that one.

Mr. Bevan: Let me read out the figures. In 1951–52, 1952 being the year in which the figures for 1951–52 were recorded, the figure was 6,003.

Mr. Watkinson: No, that is not the figure as I am advised, and I have most carefully checked it.

Mr. Bevan: That is a Press statement issued by Remploy.

Mr. Watkinson: I have the figures in my Department. As a matter of fact, in the year when the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for Remploy his figure was a thousand less than the minimum figure to which we are committed at the moment. I do not want to press that point; I do not want to go into statistical comparisons, because they are very arid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If we do, they are entirely on our side, because the pure statistics of the case go 100 per cent. to show that under my right hon. and learned Friend Remploy has done better for the employment of the disabled than it ever did in the years when the Socialists were in office.
I do not want to pursue that line, because I think that the sense of the


House, or I hope that the sense of the House, is to see what we can best do with Remploy in the future so that it helps the disabled as much as it possibly can. That is why I consider while we welcome the debate and the criticism, that the Motion is both incorrect in its facts and quite unnecessary. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite are proposing to divide the House on this Motion, then it is a great pity that we have dragged Remploy into the political arena. It would have been far better to have made our points and to have tried to work together to do better for the disabled.
Let us come to some of the facts, and let us look first at what we are really trying to do. Before doing that, I should just like to say that the contributions to the debate have been very helpful and constructive. There are two hon. Members in particular whose speeches I should like to mention. One is the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins), who has a great experience with the disabled and who was kind enough to come and see me some time ago and give me the benefit of that experience. We shall most carefully take into account what he and other hon. Members have said.
I must also mention the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood). We all know his interest and his great work for the disabled in his own area, and he was very wise to pick this occasion to give the House the benefit of his great experience and of his obviously great sympathy with the disabled. I know we all listened with great interest to what he had to say, particularly to his detailed points, like the difficulties of travel and so on, which we will undertake to consider most carefully. We look forward to hearing further contributions from him as able, as I am sure they will be, as the one he has made today.
I first want to deal with what we are trying to do in Remploy. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made a very fair and proper point when he mentioned the great work that Remploy has done, and I am very glad that he gave them credit for "graduating" disabled people so that they could go on to wider employment in general industry. There are nearly a million disabled people today in ordinary employment, in ordinary factories, doing

ordinary jobs, and jolly good luck to them.
That brings me to the point which the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) raised. He said we wanted to give a feeling of normality, to take people from their homes and let them feel, quite rightly, that they were doing decent jobs. Is that not the very reason why Remploy must be reasonably efficient? I do not mean efficient in the economic sense. Men must go to Remploy to do a proper job. They must be made to feel they are doing something worth while. Otherwise it is probably as bad as to put a man in a factory and make him make boxes and knock them to pieces again. I am not saying that is the kind of thing done in Remploy. It is the sort of thing we must guard against.
That is where we come to some of the difficulties, and the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are certainly not in line with a quite recent Select Committee on Estimates under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). I do not want to pursue this very far, but that Select Committee dealt with the Estimates in 1952–53 and noted with approval that the Remploy estimate for the year was reduced to £2,150,000.
I must quote these words:
…it remains their opinion that the consideration of the undoubted and unquestioned value of the work which the company is doing for the permanently disabled has to a certain extent been allowed to overshadow the need for the most careful economy. They consider that considerable reorganisation of the management of the company is now imperative.
That is what a Select Committee of this House said quite recently.

Mr. Bevan: So what?

Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale says "So what?" The "So what?" of it is this. That was the beginning of this examination of the structure of Remploy which led us to believe that until some changes could take place, we must put a quite temporary stop on any increase in its numbers. That was the beginning of the story.
Let us take another example. The hon. Member for Reading quite rightly and fairly said that he was very interested in the employment of fit people in Remploy, and he is naturally interested through his own trade union. One of the difficulties


we got into—and I do not blame the board of Remploy for it—arose when they were trying to employ more disabled people, which is what they should be doing. In March, 1953, they had 2,000 fit people—in other words, a number equal to 33 per cent. of the total of disabled employees were fit—and in April, 1954, it had gone up to no less than 40 per cent., because there were 2,400 fit people to 6,300 disabled people. The picture was getting completely unbalanced.
The second reason is that hon. Gentlemen interested in the Remploy scheme considered quite rightly that we ought to reduce the numbers of fit people to the present figure of 2,100, which I think is still very high, in an attempt to try to reduce the overheads so that more disabled people could be employed.
That is one of the reasons why we thought that a study of Remploy was necessary. The first reason was the Report of a Select Committee of this House, and the second reason—and this has nothing to do with the Treasury—was that it appeared to us that, quite genuinely and with the best of methods and hopes, the company was employing far too many fit people and not nearly enough disabled people.
One of the things that I want to do particularly is to see if we could not use more disabled people in the supervisory and executive jobs, because after all they are just as happy doing that job as anything else. That was one of the reasons why two of our own people were loaned to Remploy and the reason why Remploy asked for the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury to carry out this survey.
There is another point here to rebut this constantly reiterated charge from hon. Members that in some way or another the Treasury has a sort of—

Mr. Bevan: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the other point, as this is a very important matter, may I put one question to him? If, therefore, the examination shows that the defects can be remedied and the balance put right, we have an assurance that the numbers will be increased?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my

own speech. I shall answer his point. I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, and we have all tried to keep our speeches as short as we could. I will come to the point.
I said there were two reasons. The second thing I want to say about the Organisation and Methods inquiry is that, while this report is made to the board of Remploy, and therefore it is not our document, as the Minister said, the board is to discuss the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend this week, and I think it is only fair to tell the House, as so much has been said to try to make the Treasury the villain of the piece, that this is a very sympathetic and sensible report, on which I think we can build in the future.
One of the reasons why I think it will be a very great pity if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite press this Motion to a Division, and I hope they will not, is that this is a purely temporary phase, a purely temporary stop while this necessary measure of reorganisation and looking ahead was carried out in the interests of the employees of Remploy themselves.

Mr. Mikardo: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not really trying to persuade the House that it was impossible to conduct a management reorganisation in a company with 6,500 employees, and that, in order to conduct that investigation and reorganisation, they had to reduce the pay roll from 6,500 to 6,000? Nobody will believe that.

Mr. Watkinson: I am trying to make my own speech, and I shall continue to do it. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the 6,000 people are in 90 different factories. If he says that we have made no effort towards reorganisation, let me remind him that we made an effort to which he very much objected when we got rid of a number of fit people. He and his union made a lot of unnecessary publicity about it, which considerably embarrassed the board of Remploy in its task of getting on with the job. That was all the thanks it got from hon. Gentlemen opposite in trying to do that particular job.
What we have to do, and what we are going to do, is to try to look at Remploy in this wider aspect. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, if we look


at the picture fairly we see what has happened. Since 1946, the number of disabled people available for employment in Remploy has decreased to one-third of what it then was. In the same time, the number of people employed in Remploy has gone up from 500 to 6,100 at the moment. Several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have talked about a permanent stop on recruitment. Of course, it is nothing of the sort. I have said that this was a temporary phase.
We clearly stand by what my right hon. and learned Friend said, that the numbers will not be allowed to go under 6,000, even during this temporary period while we are conducting the most expert examination that we can achieve. That must mean that very shortly we shall start recruiting again, and we must do so. This will be done as soon as the company gets anywhere near the figure of 6,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why 6,000?"] Because that is the figure which we have decided is about the best at which to get the present organisation running reasonably economically while we look at the practical organisation, as we are now doing, and while the new, reconstituted board is making its own plans for the future, is considering the Organisation and Methods Report and is generally looking again at the whole picture of Remploy in the rather different circumstances.
We are looking at Remploy in different circumstances today, circumstances in which there are far fewer disabled people, whatever the number may be. I do not think any hon. Member denies that there are far fewer disabled candidates for Remploy than there ever were before. No hon. Member can deny, equally, that Remploy is employing more people than ever in its history, except for the very short period when it ran up to 6,500. I have every hope that we shall get back to that figure again.
Let me add this. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said and made a lot of play with the fact that we were not looking to the future or trying to find out the real position. I am very glad to tell him and the House that earlier this year, before the argument about Remploy started at all, we put in hand a review to find the national requirement of new Remploy factories, based on the number

of unemployed disabled persons, in the new conditions.

Mr. Edward Evans: How can the Minister possibly know the number of totally disabled persons eligible for Remploy when the provision of the National Assistance Board dealing with disabled persons is not mandatory, and until we have compulsory registration of disabled persons?

Mr. Watkinson: That is why we are conducting this survey through our own officers who know the local conditions. I was going on to tell the House that the position in five regions of my Ministry has been examined. They are the Northern, the East and West Ridings, the North Midland, the North-Western and Scotland. We have others in hand. In these regions there are, of course, some pockets of severely disabled unemployed which obviously could be met only by new factories. Perhaps the House might like to have some figures. The review has so far shown that in the recruiting areas covered by the 53 Remploy factories in these regions, which are the only ones covered in the review, there are about 1,700 severely disabled persons unemployed. In some areas, for example, in Glasgow, Tyneside and Merseyside, the numbers appear to be sufficient to justify the setting up of an additional Remploy factory. There are other areas which we have to examine.
I am giving these facts to show that we have not been sitting still and writing off Remploy as a dead or dying concern, but are planning for the future on logical, practical grounds which, we think, give much better hope for the future of the men working in Remploy than if we proceeded in a slap-happy way hoping that somehow sometime one will make ends meet at the end of the year. I do not think that that attitude is much of a tribute to the past pioneers who built this great concern. I am sure that they built in the hope that it would become a reasonably efficient organisation.
Of course, it will always lose money. Whether it is £8 or £6 per head probably does not matter very much, although if it could come down to £6 per head—which is about the average wage at the moment—it would be a more logical figure. That was, I believe, the figure when the right hon. Gentleman was responsible. But honestly, I do not think


the money matters in this, and I do honestly say to the right hon. Gentleman and to hon. Gentlemen that what has been before us is not the Treasury but the fact that we felt—and I am not criticising the board—that Remploy had got out of balance. It contained too many fit men and the sales policy was not entirely right.
The grouping of factories makes things very difficult. For instance, 50 per cent. are employed on the making of furniture. We cannot go to Government Departments for orders as much as we should like, because they cannot give us as much work as we should like. These are practical problems. We have a new board and we have a sympathetic report from the Treasury O. and M. Division,

which the board will discuss with us next week. The new chairman, vice-chairman and others will have new ideas. If those new ideas cost more money we will give them sympathetic consideration, and we will start recruitment at the end of the year.

In my view, Remploy is being fairly and properly dealt with in the interests of the disabled, and our policy is fair and right. On those grounds, I hope that the Opposition will not press the Motion, but if it does, I most certainly advise my hon. Friends and, indeed, the whole House to reject it as being quite unnecessary in the present circumstances.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 268.

Division No. 26.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Baird, J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Balfour, A.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Kenyon, C.


Bartley, P.
Fernyhough, E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Flenburgh, W.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Finch, H. J.
Lawson, G. M.


Benson, G.
Fletcher, Eric
Ledger, R. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Forman, J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Blackburn, F.
Freeman, Peter
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Blenkinsop, A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Blyton, W. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Lindgren, G. S.


Boardman, H.
Gooch, E. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Greenwood, Anthony
Logan, D. C.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Grey, C. F.
MacColl, J. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mcinnes, J.


Boyd, T. C.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McLeavy, F.


Brockway, A. F.
Hale, Leslie
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mahon, S.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Burke, W. A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mallalieu, J P. W. (Hudderfd, E.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hannan, W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mason, Roy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hastings, S.
Mayhew, C. P.


Carmichael, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Mellish, R. J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Messer, Sir F.


Champion, A. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mikardo, Ian


Clunie, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Mitchison, C. R.


Coldrick, W.
Hotmail, P.
Moody, A. S.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Houghton, Douglas
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mort, D. L.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Moss, R.


Cove, W. G.
Hoy, J. H.
Moyle, A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hubbard, T. F.
Mulley, F. W.


Cronin, J. D.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Daines, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hunter, A. E.



Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oram, A. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Owen, W. J.


Deer, G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paget, R. T.


Delargy, H. J.
Janner, B.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Dodds, N. N.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Donnelly, D. L.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pargiter, G. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Parker, J.


Dye, S.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Parkin, B. T.




Paton, J.
Snow, J. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Peart, T. P.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Popplewell, E.
Sparks, J. A.
West, D. G.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Steele, T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Probert, A. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Proctor, W. T.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Wigg, George


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Rankin, John
Swingler, S. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Reid, William
Sylvester, G. O.
Willey, Frederick


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab' tillery)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, W. R, (Openshaw)


Rodgers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Ross, William
Thornton, E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Timmons, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Short, E. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Winterbottom, Richard


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Usborne, H. C.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Sheffington, A. M.
Viant, S. P.



Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Warbey, W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Watkins, T. E.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Weitzman, D.





NOES


Agnew, cmdr. P. G.
Dance, J. C. G.
Hope, Lord John


Aitken, W. T.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
D' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Horobin, Sir Ian


Alport, C. J. M.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Howard, John (Test)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Armstrong, C. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hurd, A. R.


Ashton, H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E 'b' gh, W.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Duthie, W. S.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Atkins, H. E.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Iremonger, T. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Errington, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Balniel, Lord
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Banks, Col. C.
Fell, A.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Barber, Anthony
Finlay, Graeme
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Barlow, Sir John
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Barter, John
Fletcher-Cooke, C
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Fort, R.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Foster, John
Kaberry, D.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Keegan, D.


Bevins, J. R, (Toxteth)
Freeth, D. K.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bidgood, J. C.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kerr, H. W.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Gammans, L. D.
Kershaw, J. A.


Bishop, F. P.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Kirk, P. M.


Black, C. W.
Glover, D.
Lagden, G. W.


Body, R. P.
Godber, J. B.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lambton, Viscount


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cough, C. F. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gower, H. R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Leavey, J. A.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Leburn, W. G.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Green, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Bryan, P.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gurden, Harold
Linstead, Sir. H. N.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.


Carr, Robert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lucas Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Cole, Norman
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hay, John
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Heath, Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Crouch, R. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maddan, Martin


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Cunningham, S. K.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Currie, G. B. H.
Holt, A. F.
Marlowe, A. A. H.







Marples, A. E.
Profumo, J. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Marshall, Douglas
Raikes, Sir Victor
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Mathew, R.
Ramsden, J. E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Rawlinson, P. A. G.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Mawby, R. L.
Redmayne, M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Medlloott, Sir Frank
Renton, D. L. M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Milligan, Rt. Hon W. R.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Molson, A. H. E.
Rippon, A. G. F.
Turner, H. F. L.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Robertson, Sir David
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Moore, Sir Thomas
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vosper, D. F.


Neave, Airey
Schctield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nicolson, N. (B 'n' m'th, E. &amp; Chr' oh)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Shepherd, William
Wall, Major Patrick


Nugent, G. R. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Oakshott, H. D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)


Page, R. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Storey, S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Wood, Hon. R.


Pott, H. P.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Woollam, John Victor


Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)



Prior-Palmar, Brig. O. L
Teeling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Studholme and Colonel Harrison.


Question put and agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION)

10.9 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.
These Regulations, which consist of no fewer than 115 pages, provide for the superannuation of those engaged in the National Health Service in England and Wales, except for employees of the local health and education authorities. They are, in the main, consolidating, although there are some important amendments to which I should like briefly to draw the attention of the House. The principal Regulations that they consolidate are the 1950 Regulations, introduced shortly after the operation of the National Health Service Act.
In these very complicated Regulations, we have taken the opportunity of breaking up some of the longer provisions in the earlier Regulations. I am told, although it is difficult to believe, that the new Regulations will be easier to understand than the previous ones. It is said about the House of Commons that however complicated the subject there is always at least one person in the House who understands it. I put forward these

Regulations with some confidence as proof to the contrary, for I find it difficult to believe that, however detailed may be the study that any hon. Member has given them, he has completely mastered this complicated subject.
The matters with which I ought to trouble the House for a moment can be divided into two parts: those dealing with concurrent employments, largely devoted to removing anomalies that have arisen since the Scheme began, and one or two Regulations which in themselves are completely new. I should like, first, to pay tribute to those who drafted the 1950 Regulations. It is remarkable that five years later we should have, on the whole, so few amendments to make in what must have been one of the most complicated sets of superannuation Regulations ever to be laid before the House.
The anomalies that have risen relate in particular to doctors, who seem, more than members in other professions, to be engaged in overlapping appointments. The major proposals that we are putting forward are that all superannuable service can reckon towards benefit unless there has been a disqualifying break of a year without any superannuable Health Service appointment.
The second of the three main points is that for benefit purposes either a medical


or a dental practitioner who has contracts with more than one executive council can be treated, with advantage to himself, as though he were in a single appointment. Thirdly, a person who gives up part-time employment at or after the minimum retiring age, if he ceases to be superannuable in respect of a part-time employment which he still holds, can have his superannuation rights preserved in the continuing employment.
There has, of course, been the most detailed consultation before these Regulations were laid before the House. Apart from Government Departments, no fewer than 28 bodies were consulted, in particular the Staff Side of the General Whitley Council, the Trades Union Congress and the British Medical Association. I claim that there is general agreement with the Regulations, but I would not claim that I have been able to meet those associations in. in some cases, matters of importance, and, in other cases in matters of detail, which they have presented to me. In particular, on the question of appeal from the Minister's decision and the question of giving further rights of option, we have not been able to reach complete agreement with the bodies who were consulted.
The new provisions are explained fully in the Explanatory Note to the Regulations, and I pick out only four Regulations on which I should say a word or two to the House. First, by Regulation 10 I take powers to grant a gratuity or an annual allowance to either the widow or the dependants of a person who dies as a direct result of injury sustained, or disease contracted, in the actual performance of his duties. At present, that power is limited to a grant to widows only.
Secondly, in Regulation 19, there are new and most important provisions which extend the period normally constituting a disqualifying break in the case of a person who leaves employment which is superannuable under the scheme if he is taking up a course of study or training which fits him better for the new appointment that he is subsequently going to undertake.
Thirdly, in Regulation 58, I make provision for those employed in the old Ministry of Pensions hospitals. This is a point of particular interest to the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons). If it becomes necessary, as, for example,

recently, with the Dunston Hill Hospital, at Gateshead, to transfer, because of the number of beds vacant, a hospital from the administration of the hospital department in my Ministry to the ordinary structure of hospital management committee and regional hospital board in the National Health Service, I must reserve the rights to pensions of all the people concerned.
The last point that I want to make refers to Regulation 65, which has special provision relating to the remuneration of general practitioners. The medical profession has asked for a special regulation, which is included in these Regulations, to enable medical practitioners who are in partnership to have their remuneration allocated between them in an agreed proportion which can take into account the amount of remuneration that comes from hospital employment. I am told that it is not necessary to extend that provision to the dental profession. The B.D.A. does not wish it, because the structure of dental partnership is apparently rather simpler and does not need the great, complicated reckoning which Regulation 65 enables us to make.
I believe that those are the only points to which I should draw the attention of the House. These Regulations are inevitably complicated. They deal with an infinite variety of grades and it is important that we should preserve their rights, as we have done. The Regulations are chiefly consolidating, but there are important new Regulations which are mainly designed to benefit those who serve in the National Health Service. I thought it right to give this information in asking the House to approve the Regulations.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us an introduction to the Regulations. I have always a great deal of sympathy with anyone who takes on the task of explaining these Regulations to the House. I had a great deal of sympathy with myself when I did so some years ago. One has always a fear that in the House at the time there will be someone who will carry out a searching, detailed examination of some of the more abtruse provisions in the Regulations.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is probably no one in the House this evening who is fitted to carry out that task. Nevertheless, I think that it is worth saying something about the Regulations. I join with the right hon. Gentleman in his tribute to those who had the responsibility of drafting them originally, and, indeed, to the way in which, on the whole, they have been administered. It is rather surprising how little difficulty and complaint there has been because of the undoubted complexity of their provisions. I think it can be said that the staff have done what they can to explain what at first sight appears to be unexplainable in these Regulations to many concerned.
It would be interesting if, at some time, this House or a committee could examine where we are going in this matter and could look into the whole development of superannuation and its effect upon the economy. I sometimes begin to wonder what the development is to be and whether we are to pay, under the Regulations, more in superannuation than we are to have available for ordinary payment to those who are carrying out their regular duties. I sometimes wonder whether that is the position we shall reach.
On the broad question, there are one or two points I want to raise. I appreciate that this is largely, as the Minister said, a matter of consolidation, but there are some important changes carried out which, in fact, we welcome. In addition, there are one or two questions I want to ask. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of the Minister's determination of claims for superannuation benefit under Regulation 85. I gather that if that were to be reviewed at all it would probably mean a change in the Act itself. I realise that it may very well be undesirable to widen that field very considerably, but there are classes of case which are different and which chiefly arise among mental officers. Many feel that they would wish to have some opportunity of appealing, and I know they are not happy about the position as it stands. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could say that their views are being taken into consideration in any review there may be carried out on this particular issue.
Then there is another point which also affects mental officers particularly, the question of Regulation 51 and the effect of war service or National Service upon the rights of these officers and the doubling of the years of service for superannuation claims after their first twenty years of mental nursing. The effect of National Service or war service generally, unless they are, in fact, carrying out mental nursing, is to delay the date at which they would be entitled to this doubling of their superannuation claims. It is, perhaps, natural that many of those placed in that position feel that they are being put at a disadvantage when compared with others who have not been in the Armed Forces for reasons quite outside their own control. I am not in any way blaming the Minister for this. This matter came up some years ago, but probably it is time to look at it again and see whether there is any way at all to meet the limited number of cases concerned.
There is also one other factor, the position of opticians. The general practitioners, specialists in hospital, all other medical staffs in hospitals, and dentists are covered under these Regulations, but it is natural that the opticians should feel that they have every right to some further consideration. After all, it is seven years since we talked about our supplementary ophthalmic service which was regarded, in the days when we introduced the National Health Service, as a temporary one. We were then thinking in terms of a hospital based service for optical work generally. But, of course, ideas may well have changed since then as to the practicability of anything of that kind.
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman now say what is the possibility of considering the inclusion of opticians in Regulations like these? It seems to me that the work they are doing is closely parallel in many ways with that of the dentists, and that it might be possible now to think in terms of something more than the temporary arrangements made up to the present.
We on this side of the House welcome these Regulations and feel sure that they will be administered as smoothly and as satisfactorily, broadly speaking, as we found the previous ones to be.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Perhaps I may reply to the three points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) on these complicated Regulations. I agree with the general remarks at the beginning of his speech that it would be a good thing if, at some time, we could discuss, and be clear about, where we are going with all the different superannuation schemes Government, public and private enterprise, that are being spun like a web around the existing national schemes. Perhaps I may take his points in reverse order, because the most important one he made—that about the appeal—is the one to which I would like to devote a minute or two.
On the question of opticians, all we can do in Regulations is to carry out what the Act says. The Regulations cannot create new law. They merely come within the limits of the parent Act which, in this case, is the National Health Service Act, 1946. Section 67 laid down that provision should be made for medical practitioners and for dental practitioners, but there was no provision for opticians. Equally, there was no provision for chemists who, in some ways, it could be argued are in a comparable situation.
The hon. Gentleman asked me for my proposals. All I can do is as I have done in these Regulations, but the question of opticians might appropriately be considered when legislation comes before the House, as it will in due course, based on the Crook Report. We shall then have a full opportunity to discuss the position of opticians in relation to the larger scheme of the National Health Service.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Could not the Minister say when we can expect that Report?

Mr. Macleod: Not on these Regulations or in any other capacity tonight.
The second point made by the hon. Gentleman was one which has not very much substance if one looks more closely at it, namely, the rights of the mental health officer. Rights are given to these officers to compensate for the difficulty and stress imposed upon them in dealing with mental patients. The mental health

officer is defined—and this to some extent links with my next point about the appeal—as someone who "devotes the whole, or substantially the whole of his time to the treatment or the care …" of mental patients or defectives. As compensation for that stress these officers may have certain rights which enable them to retire earlier and to count certain years as more valuable to them in the calculation of pensions.
The suggestion was that if they were away on National Service, they should carry such rights with them. But, of course, if they were on National Service, even if they were engaged on nursing, as they might well be in one of the Armed Services, they would still not be dealing with mental patients. Consequently, the stress for which added value is given to their superannuation would not be present at that time. I do not think there is a very strong case for considering that they should have these extra rights while they are doing their share in National Service.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Minister agree that it causes a little difficulty to have mental officers who have done, broadly, the same period of work in mental nursing, short of their period in the Armed Forces, working next to others who because their work has not been interrupted by a period in the Armed Forces are able to claim the extra rights? There are such difficulties as between one man and another.

Mr. Macleod: The mental health officer counts his period of National Service for superannuation purposes in the ordinary way; he merely cannot count it extra. I should have thought that as what we call the "additional stress" was removed from him during his period of National Service, that was, on the whole, fair. He may not continue to gain while he is doing National Service, but at least he does not lose in comparison with anyone else.
I now come to the most important point made by the hon. Gentleman, which relates to the question of the appeal. Again, all I can do in Regulations is to carry out the parent Act. Incidentally, Regulation 85, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is an exact copy of the 1950 Regulation. The Act lays down, in Section 67, that determination


of all questions arising under the Regulations shall be made by the Minister. Therefore, so far as the law is concerned, all I can do is to present to the House the Regulations in this form.
Whether it is wise to do that is, of course, another matter. It is probably worth detaining the House for a couple of minutes on this point. A very interesting case came before the High Court and the Court of Appeal a year ago in which someone sought a declaration that he was a mental health officer although I, as Minister, had decided that he was not.
When the issue came before the High Court it was pleaded on my behalf that the court had no jurisdiction to consider the question because I had already decided it under the Regulations and under the authority given to me by the Act. The High Court and, later, the Court of Appeal upheld that view, but I think it is worth quoting two rather differing views on the matter which were expressed.
In the High Court, Mr. Justice Cassels said:
I cannot help feeling that it is a matter of some concern that the question … should not be decided by a court of law instead of, under the Act and Regulations, by a Minister acting, doubtless, through one of his departments. Nobody knows what submissions, if any, were made. Nobody knows how, if at all, the case for or against the plaintiff was put. Something was decided against the plaintiff behind closed doors.
A rather differing view was put by Lord Justice Denning in the Court of Appeal, when he said:
I would say that the questions arising under these Regulations are for the most part much more suited for determination by the Minister than by the court. The courts have ample powers to see that the Minister does his work properly but they should not seek to do it for him, or to do it all over again, possibly with a different result.
One can, of course, add that Parliament, apart from the courts, has its checks in various ways upon whatever action the Minister may take.
I do not say, I do not attempt to say, which of those two views by learned judges is correct, but it is true, and I say this in answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, that on this side of the House we are

very much concerned with this whole problem of administrative tribunals. The House will be aware that in the Queen's Speech we undertook to have an inquiry into practice and procedure in these matters.
The terms of that inquiry have not been announced and I cannot prophesy what they will be. I do not know whether this subject will come within its purview. But it does at least seem likely that it will and the answer to the hon. Member is that I am very much concerned to see that these matters are both administered fairly and that people believe that justice is done. I am quite prepared to look at—I am looking at—some proposals for altering this situation and it seems at least likely that this matter will come within the purview of the committee of inquiry when it is set up.
However, so far as tonight's business is concerned, all I can do is to follow the intention of the parent Act and carry out that intention in Regulation 85. I hope that I have answered the three points raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East and I hope that the House will agree to the Regulations.

Resolved,
That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

10.37 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Scotland) Regulations, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.
I do not think that the House will wish me to say very much about these Regulations, because their purpose is to apply to the National Health Service Superannuation Scheme in Scotland the same superannuation arrangements as have just been approved by the House for the Health Service in England and Wales in the Regulations moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
Like the English Regulations, these Regulations consolidate and reproduce, with some amendments, the provisions of the principal Regulations which were made


in 1950 and amending Regulations made in 1951, 1952 and in 1953, when provisions were made for the ex-Ministry of Pensions staff who were transferred into the Health Service for Scotland at that time.
The Scottish and English Health Service Superannuation Schemes have always run on parallel lines and there is complete interchangeability between them. I will not explain them in detail, unless hon. Gentlemen ask me so to do, so with those brief remarks I confidently commend these Regulations to the House.

10.39 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: When one looks at the extent of the Regulations and the amount of paper they take, one realises how complicated they are. I have tried to study them, but tonight the Under-Secretary might have dealt with the changes that have been made in the original Regulations, which were produced in 1950.
I know that the Regulations which have come in years subsequent to 1950 have been mostly to deal with matters not covered by those of 1950. There were definite reasons for those Regulations and I realise, of course, that these Regulations are consolidating. But the Under-Secretary has himself said that there have been some amendments and we would like him to deal with any matters that have been amended by the Regulations which are now before us.
I take it that there was the same consultation with the interested bodies in Scotland as there was with interested bodies in England and Wales. Have all these Regulations been agreed with the interested bodies? Have there been points of difference between these bodies and the Government? I want the Joint Under-Secretary to tell us the major points of difference which the Government decided they could not cover.
I turn to Regulation 35. This applies to the return of contributions. In (1, a) we find that if an officer ceases to be employed by reason of resignation there shall be no right to a return of contributions, but that the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, can return to him, to his spouse or to any dependant, a sum equal to the whole or part of his contribu-

tions. I have had a number of cases brought to my notice of male mental hospital nurses who complained to me that if they wished to resign to go to other work their contributions were not returned. Men have wished to go abroad. They felt that they had unjust treatment by this Regulation, which is the same as the Regulation was for 1950.
Would a man going abroad find that the Secretary of State would exercise the discretion given to him in these Regulations, and return the contributions, or would the Minister firmly adhere to the letter of the Regulations and refuse to do so?

10.43 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Forman: I am surprised that the Joint Under-Secretary should try to dismiss these Regulations simply on the basis that we have just agreed to the English Regulations. He must know that we have a number of advisory commitees in Scotland dealing with the health services. I should like an assurance that these committees have been asked for their observations and have been fully consulted on the matters embodied in the Regulations.
Male nurses engaged in mental work only have the right to earlier retiral than ordinary nurses because of the nature of their work. I should like an assurance from the Minister that their superannuation rights are fully safeguarded in this Measure.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Before explaining the differences in the new Scheme as compared with the old one, I shall deal with the points which have been raised. There has been the same consultation as there was in England. In fact, 28 different bodies have been consulted, and I am advised that there are no major points of difference. Consultations have been carried out over a very wide field indeed.
The next point related to the return of contributions to people wanting to go abroad. I understand that, since the Health Service began, all contributions have been repaid, so if the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has any particular case in mind I should be very glad to have details.
As I did not quite catch the point raised by the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Forman), perhaps he would be kind enough to repeat it.

Mr. Forman: The male mental nurse has the right to an earlier retirement because of his onerous duties. Are his superannuation rights safeguarded?

Mr. Browne: Oh, yes. Because he is dealing with mental cases every year that he serves after twenty years counts as two. If he wishes to retire after twenty years he can do so, but if he does not retire every year served after that counts as two. His rights, therefore, are properly safeguarded.
Very briefly, these are the principal amendments to the Scheme. First to include new and to amend existing provisions related to "added years" of service granted for local government superannuation purposes to certain employees with special qualifications in local government. Secondly, to include new provisions relating to persons holding more than one appointment simultaneously in the hospital or general practitioner service. Thirdly, to amend the provisions relating to the method by which the remuneration of medical practitioners in partnership is taken into account for superannuation purposes. Fourthly, to make new provisions, and changes in existing provisions, the more important of which are as follows.
First, to extend to dependants of a deceased person who was subject to the Health Service Superannuation Scheme the provision which enables the Secretary of State, in prescribed circumstances, to grant a gratuity or annual allowance to the widow of a person who died as a direct result of an injury sustained, or a disease contracted, in the actual discharge of his duties and specifically attributable to the nature of his duty.

Mr. William Ross: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene, as I had intended to raise a point under Regulation 11. It is not very clear how the Secretary of State is to make this payment. So far as I can see, it is entirely at his discretion. Though I have read most of the Regulations I cannot get enlightenment. I think

it is a very wide discretion. The man is to receive
…such gratuity or annual allowance as the Secretary of State may consider reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case…
That has not worked very well at all in other Schemes, and I wonder whether any representations were made on this point. As far as I can see, this must cover nurses who come into the nursing service—particularly on the T.B. side, who might well contract the disease, die and leave dependants. This type of case has already arisen, and I should like elucidation of what the Secretary of State has in mind for this kind of thing.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Member raises a very proper point. These provisions, I understand, fall into line with the Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) (Scotland) Regulations, 1954. We are bringing the present proposals into line—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. This is the extension of a provision; it is something new. It is a gratuity payable at the discretion of the Secretary of State. In the case of permanent injury or the contraction of a disease resulting in loss of employment, there is already provision for payment of up to two-thirds of the remuneration; that is already payable. But in the case of a dependant, there is no existing Regulation and the provision is being made for the first time. Again, it is a gratuity, but no scale is laid down. It is to be entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. To my mind, that is not entirely satisfactory.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Member may not think that it is satisfactory, but it has been approved by all the bodies who are interested; and, as I say, it is in line with the practice in the Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) (Scotland) Regulations, 1954. At this time of night, I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member any further information than that.
Let me continue to record the new provisions and the changes that are being made. The Regulations extend to the period of the disqualifying break in service to a person who has taken a course of study or training which fits him better for his duties in his new employment.


Next, they secure that a re-employed pensioner who is receiving a pension under the conditions of a scheme for which he opted on entering the National Health Service may be able to earn extra benefits under the main provisions of the Regulations. They also provide for the average remuneration of a dental practitioner to he taken over the whole period of his service instead of over the last three years, as at present, that is, for the purpose of calculating a short-service gratuity or a death gratuity, either on death or in prepaid form. This concession is made at the request of the British Dental Association.
Those are the main amendments, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity of putting them on the record.

Resolved,
That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Scotland) Regulations, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION, ETC.

Select Committee appointed to advise Mr. Speaker on matters concerning the facilities, including accommodation, available to Members in and about the Palace of Westminster:

Commander Agnew, Sir Robert Cary, Mr. Daines, Mr. Elliot, Miss Jennie Lee, Mr. Frank McLeavy, Mr. Charles Pannell, Miss Pitt, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Storey, and Mr. Kenneth Thompson:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Power to report from time to time:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Godber.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.